1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.423/2008 In Writ Petition No.3704/2008 (D) [Bahujan Vikas Mandal through its President .vrs. Ku. Shalini Narayan Chankranarayan and others] .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent no.1. .......... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ . DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2009. 1. Heard Mr. P.S. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This letters patent appeal is directed against order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3704/2008 by which writ petition filed by the appellant herein was partly allowed. 2 3. Respondent no.1 was serving in the school run by the appellant as Assistant Teacher and she was suspended on 16.10.2002 and ultimately on 5.4.2003 her services came to be terminated. Against the termination, respondent no.1 preferred Appeal to the School Tribunal at Amravati bearing No.34/2003 which was allowed by the Tribunal with a direction to the appellant to reinstate respondent no.1 with back-wages. The order passed by the School Tribunal was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No.3704/2008. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 24.10.2008 partly allowed the petition and permitted the appellant to conduct fresh enquiry subject to certain conditions. The learned Single Judge held that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and further held that the appellant should be permitted to conduct the enquiry but at the same time respondent no.1 deserved to be compensated to some extent. Consequently, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and suffering. The said amount was also 3 permitted to be adjusted depending upon the result of enquiry. The learned Single Judge also directed the Management to pay subsistence allowance within a period of two weeks and further directed payment of amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three weeks. The learned Single Judge further held that if the amount of Rs.50,000/- and subsistence allowance arrears were not paid within the time stipulated, the order of the School Tribunal would automatically revive. 4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is aggrieved only to the extent of direction given to the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to respondent no.1. Since the Management is not in a position to pay the same, however, the Management is ready to pay subsistence allowance as directed by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned counsel for the appellant there was absolutely no justification for the learned Single Judge to direct payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to respondent no.1. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserved to be quashed to the extent it directs payment of Rs.50,000/- to 4 respondent no.1. 5. Per contra, Mr. A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for respondent no.1, submitted that the order granting the amount of Rs.50,000/- to respondent no.1 was actually passed on the basis of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant although the same is not recorded in the impugned order. Mr. Ghare submitted that the learned Single Judge has ordered payment of the said amount by way of compensation towards the harassment and suffering and even has directed the Management to adjust the same pending upon the result in enquiry. This being the position, there is absolutely no justification for interference by this court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Ghare further points out that neither the amount of Rs.50,000/- nor subsistence allowance as ordered by the learned Judge has been paid till date. 6. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, states that the appellant is ready and willing to pay subsistence allowance to respondent no.1. 5 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the payment of Rs.50,000/- is by way of compensation for the harassment and suffering to respondent no.1 and the Management has been permitted to adjust the said amount depending upon the result of enquiry. This being the position, we find no merit in the submission of Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the order granting of Rs.50,000/- is absolutely illegal. Mere fact that the Management claims that it is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. This order passed by the learned Single Judge is conditional one and since the same has not complied with by payment of amount of Rs.50,000/- and by way of payment of subsistence allowance, the order of the School Tribunal stands revived. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs 6 quantified at Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to respondent no.1 within a period of six weeks. The appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande