1 780810 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7808 OF 2010 Niranjan Deoram Jadhav ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih for the Petitioner Ms. S.S. Bhende,A.G.P., for Respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. K.Y. Mandlik for Respondents No. 4 and 5 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 7TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.:- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for direction against respondents No. 4 and 5 to direct them to forthwith make payment of an amount of Rs.20,56,865/- towards his salaries along with interest at the rate of 18% and to continue to pay future monthly salary regularly from month to month. Further direction is sought against the said respondents to extend all the service benefits such as continuity of service and all consequential 2 780810 benefits, including the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations. The petitioner was employed as an Instructor in the 5th respondent-school. According to the petitioner, he was otherwise terminated in June, 2008. 2. The said action of the Management was challenged by the petitioner by way of Appeal No. NSK/04/2009 before the School Tribunal, Nashik. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 8th July, 2009. The operative order of the Tribunal reads thus:- “O R D E R The Appeal is allowed. It is declared that the act of Respondent institute terminating the services of Appellant by oral order is illegal and the termination of services of Appellant by oral order is hereby set aside. The resp. nos. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to reinstate the Appellant on the same post with backwages and continuity of service. The Respondents shall comply this order within 40 days from the date of order. Parties shall bear their own costs.” 3. It is not in dispute that the decision of the School Tribunal has been allowed to attain finality by the Management. In that case, 3 780810 the Management would be obliged not only to reinstate the petitioner on the same post on which he was working till June, 2008, but also to compensate him with backwages and continuity of service. The petitioner has computed the amount due and payable to him, as reflected from the chart, Exhibit ‘G’. The petitioner has asked for reliefs against respondents No. 4 and 5 for payment of amount of Rs.20,56,865/- along with interest at the rate of 18% thereon towards his salaries. The counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, submits that the petitioner will have to restrict his claim towards salary on the basis of benefits that would accrue to the petitioner in view of the 5th Pay Commission and 6th Pay Commission recommendations up to only three years anterior to the date of filing of the writ petition, which is the settled legal position. 4. Instead of examining the said grievances of the petitioner for the first time in these proceedings, we deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, respondent No.2, who, in turn, shall consider the grievances made by the petitioner in the present petition as his representation, and after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the Management, pass such directions as may be esential in the fact situation of the present case. We make it clear that we are neither examining the 4 780810 grievance made by the petitioner nor the plea taken by the Management, through counsel, and stated in the reply-affidavit on its merits, one way or the other. All contentions available to respective parties will have to be examined by respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. We further make it clear that the fact that the petitioner is entitled to benefit as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations is also a matter which will have to be decided by the said Authority on its own merits. 5. The petitioner as well as the representative of the Management shall appear in the office of respondent No. 2 on 27th June, 2011 at around 11.00 a.m., on which date, respondent No. 2 may call upon the parties to file their respective statements of claim and submissions, if any, and then proceed to consider the matter on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the first appearance made by the parties. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 and 5, through counsel, waive notice of appearance before respondent No. 2 on 27th June, 2011. 6. This petition is disposed of on the above terms, with no order as to costs. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.