-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8610 OF 2007 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 977 OF 2008 H.B.B. Bhagwandada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & another ...Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Bhende, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. I.M. Khairdi for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: AUGUST 12, 2008. P.C. During the course of hearing of Civil Application No. 977 of 2008 preferred by Respondent No.3, the learned advocates appearing for the parties have agreed that the whole writ petition itself may be taken up for hearing. Accordingly, the petition has been taken up for hearing today itself along with the civil application with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 2. This petition is filed against an interlocutory order passed by the School Tribunal below Exhibit-5 in Appeal No. 18 of 2006 dated 29th September, 2007. The respondent No.3 has filed the aforesaid appeal before the School Tribunal challenging her termination order. The case of the third -2- respondent before the Tribunal is that she had served with the institution on the post of Assistant Teacher for the period between 20th December, 2001 and 8th February, 2006 and she having served for more than five years got the status of permanent employment. It is her case that her services were satisfactory. However, from 8th February, 2006, she was prevented from signing the muster roll by the President and Headmaster of the School. On such grounds, she has challenged the order of the management by way of the aforesaid appeal. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 preferred an application i.e. Exh. 5 with a prayer that the order of termination dated 10th February, 2006 may be stayed. The Tribunal by its order dated 29th September, 2007 allowed the said application of the third respondent and the earlier order of stay granted by the Tribunal on 14th February, 2006 was confirmed till the decision of the appeal. It is the aforesaid order of the Tribunal which is impugned at the instance of the management in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that at the time of admission hearing, this Court has stayed the impugned order, however, this Court has directed the management to deposit the salary of the concerned teacher regularly before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3, however, submitted that he has already filed -3- Civil Application to the effect that the management has not complied with the said order and has not deposited the salary regularly from the date of termination order. Learned counsel has further submitted that the teacher is prevented from joining the duty and, therefore, the management should be directed to deposit the salary since February, 2006. Since the management has not complied with the said order of the learned single Judge regarding deposit of the salary regularly, the stay may be vacated. As against this, Mr. Joshi submitted that the management has deposited such amount. He, however, submitted that the management will also deposit the salary for the month of September, 2007 within a period of two months from today and will regularly deposit the salary before the Tribunal till the appeal is decided by the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Considering the fact that the order of the Tribunal has been stayed by this Court and further considering the fact that this writ petition is filed against an interlocutory order, it would be just and proper to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the pending Appeal being Appeal No. 18 of 2006 latest by 31st December, 2008. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi has assured the Court that his client will co-operate in early disposal of the matter so that the Tribunal can decide the matter within a stipulated period. 6. The petitioner is directed to deposit the arrears of salary, if any, -4- commencing from September, 2007 upto the date of this order within a period of two months from today before the Tribunal. If the salary of September, 2007 has not been deposited, the same may also be deposited within the said period. The Respondent No.3 is directed to withdraw 50 per cent of the said amount. However, such withdrawal will be subject to the final outcome of the order of the Tribunal. Mr. Joshi has fairly agreed that the management will file an undertaking before this Court within two weeks from today stating that the management shall abide by the order of the Tribunal in case any order of back wages is passed by the Tribunal and such order will be complied with within two weeks from the date of the order of the Tribunal, subject to the petitioners right to challenge such order in accordance with law before this Court. 7. In view of what is stated above, the stay granted by the Tribunal shall continue to operate till the Tribunal takes a final decision and such decision is to be taken latest by 31st December, 2008. However, in case the appeal is not decided within the stipulated time, it will be open to respondent No.3 to move an appropriate application before this Court for further direction. It is clarified that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall decide the appeal on its own merits within the stipulated time. 8. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. In -5- view of the disposal of the writ petition, no orders are required to be passed on the Civil Application and the Civil Application is also disposed of. 9. The learned AGP has submitted that she is appearing in this matter on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and she has nothing to argue in this matter as the dispute is mainly between the petitioner management and respondent No.3. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.