1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1074 OF 2009 Madhura W/o of Sainath Gaonkar ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondents Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih for Petitioner Ms.Anjali Helekar, AGP for the State CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : 18TH MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2 The petitioner approached this Court to contend that the arrears of salary were not paid in terms of the direction of the School Tribunal dated 16th April, 2008. Subsequent to the order of the Tribunal the Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai North Zone by order dated 23rd January, 2009 granted approval. One of the condition imposed is as under: "Smt. Gaonkar due to termination was not actually working from 1.5.2004 to 14.2.2005. Hence, on the basis of "no work No Pay" salary would not be permissible to her for the said period. However, as per the Judgment of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai permanency would be granted to her." 3 This order was noted by us in the order passed on February 3, 2010. This Court noted that the order of the Tribunal dated 16th April 2008 had 2 framed question whether the appointment of the petitioner was made against the vacant and permanent post. The Tribunal thereafter answered the issue holding that there was a vacancy for open category candidate and the petitioner was rightly appointed against the said post. This Court also noted that the Tribunal had permitted the reinstatement of the petitioner and has allowed the proposal for approval. 4 Once it is held that there was regular vacancy and the petitioner was rightly appointed, the illegal termination cannot be held against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not work for the period. Consequent to the order of reinstatement, the petitioner was reinstated in the post and consequently is entitled to the pay in respect of the said post. 5 In the meantime, it was found that the school itself had applied for transfer to another area. The teacher herself was transferred to another school. According to the teacher attempts made to join in the transferred school were futile. The learned AGP requests the Court to issue direction to respondent No. 3 to make payment of the salary for that particular period as per the record available with them. Considering the above, respondent No .3 to make payment of the salary to the petitioner within 4 weeks from today which salary was not paid in terms of the order of the Tribunal. 6 The petitioner was transfered to another school, where the petitioner did not join and sought the posting in some other school on the ground of her health. The petitioner thereafter has been transferred to Mulund 3 Vidyamandir. It is the case of the petitioner that she attempted to join the school but was not allowed to join the school. In the circumstances, the respondent no.3 is directed to direct the said school to allow the petitioner to join and further to send the petitioner's salary bills from the date the petitioner was directed to join and petitioner first reported. On failure of the said school to allow the petitioner to join the school, respondent No.3 to take steps to stop grants of the said school or take over the management if in law that is permissible. The entire action to be taken within two months from today. 7 The petitioner must be allowed to join the school where the petitioner has been posted and also be paid the salary by the School in which she has been transferred. 8 Rule made absolute accordingly, no order as to costs. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)