1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8390 OF 2006 SANJAY DHANJI SHIRSAT .. PETITIONER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. M. S. Topkar for petitioner Mr. V. P. Malvankar, AGP for R-1 & 2 Mr. A.A. Garge for R-3 & 4 Ms.Kumud Bhatia for R-5 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R.S. DALVI, JJ. DATE: 23-1-2008 P.C. . Respondent 5 was working as Assistant Teacher in the 4th respondent school run by the 3rd respondent. 2. In 1997 her services were terminated by the 4th respondent. Being aggrieved by the termination order, the 5th respondent filed appeal before the School Tribunal. 3. On 16/8/98 the petitioner came to be appointed 2 in the said vacancy of Assistant Teacher for the academic year 1998-99 subject to the decision of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent before the School Tribunal. Thereafter the services of the petitioner came to be continued in the same vacancy. On 5/10/04, the School Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the 3rd respondent to reinstate the 5th respondent with 50% back wages. 4. The 3rd respondent management filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 4315 of 2005 in this court. In that writ petition an order was passed on 20/1/06 disposing of the writ petition in terms of consent minutes of order. Consent Minutes of Order read thus; . "The impugned judgment and order dt. 5.10.04 passed by the Presiding Officer, Addl. School Tribunal Navi Mumbai in Appeal No. 182/1997 is quashed and set aside and is substituted as under. 1. The petitioners will reinstate the respondent no. 1 on 21.1.2006 in the service with continuity of service, seniority & pay fixation, from the date of her appointment i.e. 13.6.94. 3 2. The petitioners will submit pay bills in respect of back wages of the respondent no. 1 to the Education Officer i.e. respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 3 shall take necessary decision thereon within 3 months". 3. The Education Officer i.e. respondent no. 3 to grant approval accordingly to the respondent no. 1 and sanction and pay future salary of the respondent no. 1 after reinstatement, regularly. 4. The respondent no. 1 agrees and undertakes that she will not claim any back wages from the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. 5. No order as to costs". 5. Pursuant to the reinstatement of the 5th respondent, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 20/1/06 which the petitioner has not challenged. The petitioner has approached this court with a grievance that out of the period for which the petitioner worked in the 4th respondent school, the approval is granted only for two years i.e. for academic years 1998-99 and 2001-02. His 4 further grievance is that he has not been paid salary for the entire period. Therefore, he has preferred this writ petition. It is also an admitted position that the management has paid Rs.60,000/- to him. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 affidavit is filed by Mr. Chandrakant Kotwal, Deputy Education Officer, Z.P. Relevant portions of paragraphs 7 and 10 of the said affidavit may be quoted; "7. ..... . ..... . I say that as about the request of the petitioner, I have to submit that, the petitioner has actually done the work and taught in the school. If the Hon’ble Court allows the Education Officer Respondent No. 2 will give approval to the appointments of the petitioner which were made by year to year basis and will pay the salary and wages of that particular period for what period he has 5 done his duty. I say that this is again to clarify that Government will not pay two sets of salary for one sanctioned post." 10. With reference to Para No. 15 of the Petition, I have to say and submit that the petitioner has performed his duties as a teacher in the school and he is not fully paid for that. He is entitled for the salary and wages for the particular period, claim for which he has performed his duties. My humble submission is that, department will pay one set of salary for one sanctioned post, subject to the Orders of Hon’ble High Court, salary will be paid." 8. The petitioner and the 5th respondent have amicably settled the matter. Consent Minutes of Order duly signed by the petitioner and 5th respondent and their respective counsel and on behalf of respondent 3 by its Secretary and on behalf of Respondent 4 by its Headmaster and respective counsel of respondent 3 and 4 are taken on record and marked "X". 6 9. Mr. Malwankar, learned AGP has signed on the consent minutes of order for the purposes of identification. 10. In view of the consent minutes of order and in view of the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit which we have quoted hereinabove, order in terms of Consent Minutes of Order. 11. The petitioner is present in the court. He states that he has received two years’ salary i.e. for the academic year 1998-99 and 2001-02. 12. The 1st and 2nd respondent shall take action in accordance with consent minutes of the order. 13. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE