1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7603 OF 2008 Shree Sawata Mali Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and others ...Petitioners Versus Rajaram s/o Madhavrao Gawali and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for respondent No. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik Region, Nashik in appeal No. DHL/40/2001. 2 By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent, however, has directed the petitioner to pay salary for the post of clerk, lab assistant and peon for the period from 1.9.1995 to September, 2001, as per the Rules prescribed by the Government to the appellant towards the compensation. 2 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the pleading of the petition and grounds therein as well as annexures thereto and more particularly page 33 and 34 of the compilation as well as findings recorded by the School Tribunal and submitted that the respondent has not worked for the period for which the Tribunal has ordered the salary. Learned counsel has further invited my attention to the page 33 and submitted that then secretary directed the Head Master to allow the petitioner to sign the muster roll. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the salary cannot be given to the respondent without rendering the services. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further invited my attention at page 34 and 35 of the compilation and submitted that said affidavit has not been taken into consideration by the School Tribunal. Therefore, the direction by the School Tribunal to pay salary to the respondent for the period in the order is unwarranted and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the School Tribunal and has submitted the School Tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter. He invited my attention to para 23 of the judgment as well as other parts and submitted that the respondent has worked for the period for which the salary is directed to that extent. 3 5 After hearing counsel for the petitioner and respondent, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence has come to the correct conclusion that the respondent has worked for the period from 1.9.1995 to September, 2001 and the School Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioner to pay the salary for the said period. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Head Master has allowed to sign the muster roll on the directions of the Secretary of the institution, however, it is an internal business of the institution between the Secretary and Head Master but the fact remains that the respondent has worked for the period from 1.9.1995 to September, 2001. The School Tribunal has jurisdiction to give direction for payment of compensation. The impugned judgment and order cannot be said to be perverse or direction to pay salary to the respondent by the petitioner for the period from 1.9.1995 to September, 2001 does not suffer from any infirmity. The School Tribunal has rightly exercised the jurisdiction and has rightly directed the petitioner to pay salary to the respondent, who has proved his case before the School Tribunal by way of leading evidence. No case is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ***** 4