- Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8588 of 2004 Tanaji Vishnu Jadhav ..Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr. G.M.Savagave for the Petitioner Mr.T.S.Ingale for respondent No.4 Miss M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3 CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & : D.K.DESHMUKH & : D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, N.D.DESHPANDE, N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ JJ JJ 3rd 3rd 3rd June, 2008 June, 2008 June, 2008 P.C. . By this petition the petitioner challenges the order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 13-5-2002. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was in the employment of respondent no.4. The sole reason given in the order for terminating the services of the petitioner is that the management has decided to close down the institution. It appears that alongwith the petitioner, the services of other teachers working in the same institution were also terminated for the same reason namely that the institution is being closed. Those teachers had approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was Writ Petition No. 3793/2002. That petition was decided by Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27-9-2002. This Court held that the closure of the Institution by the respondent no.4 was illegal and, therefore, the decision of the management to close the institution was set aside. The orders terminating the services of the employees were also set aside. The petitioner did not file petition at 2 that time. After the aforesaid order the petitioner made representation that because he is similarly situated, the management should treat him equally with the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3793/2002. The management did not do so, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Affidavit in reply has not been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. It is an admitted position that the sole reason given for terminating the services of petitioner was closure of institution. It is also an admitted position that the decision of the management of closure of the institution has been set aside by this Court and, therefore, the sole reason given for terminating the services of the petitioner has disappeared and, therefore, the order terminating the services of petitioner will have to be set aside and the petitioner will have to be directed to be reinstated in service. So far as question of payment of backwages is concerned, as a consequence of reinstatement, the petitioner would be entitled to backwages but in our opinion, as the services of petitioner were terminated in 2002 and he did not immediately approached the Court and waited till 2004, it will not be appropriate to award to the petitioner backwages for the period from the date of termination till 28-9-2004. In our opinion, the petitioner would be entitled to backwages only from the date of filing of the petition which is 29-9-2004. It 3 was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the management that the petitioner has been gainfully employed during this period but there is no affidavit filed on behalf of the management. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also does not dispute that for some period he was gainfully employed but according to him the salary received by him in that employment was much lower than the salary which he would have received had he continued in service of respondent no.4. Taking over all view of the matter, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R R D E R R D E R The order dated 13-5-2002 impugned in the petition is set aside. The petitioner is granted reinstatement in service. It is held that petitioner would be entitled to backwages from 29-9-2004 till the date of his reinstatement in service. Within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner will submit to the respondent no.4 a detailed chart showing the amount of backwages to which according to him, he is entitled to. The respondent no.4 shall thereafter hold an enquiry to find out as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed during the aforesaid period and if so what was his earning and thereafter respondent no.4 4 shall determine the amount of backwages to which the petitioner is entitled and communicate that order to the petitioner and make payment of amount to which the petitioner may be held entitled within a period of four weeks from the date of determination. In case the petitioner teacher feels aggrieved by the determination, he shall be at liberty to challenge that determination before appropriate forum. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)