1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4447/2006 ( Dilip Raosaheb Pole .vrs. Ahillyadevi Holkar Smarak Sanstha and others ) WRIT PETITION NO. 4309/2006 ( Ashok Vasant Kale .vrs. Ahillyadevi Holkar Smarak Sanstha and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : JULY 28, 2009. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri Mandpe, learned A.G.P. for respondent State. Petitioners before us are placed in precarious condition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that at least from 01.05.1997 till 19.08.1999, petitioners have worked in authorised school and hence, the prayer in the petition for direction to release their salary for that period can be safely granted. This is without prejudice to the contention, that the petitioners have worked in authorised school and hence prayer clause [i] of Writ Petition i.e. claim for salary from 01.05.1997 to 09.09.2002 needs to be granted. He contends that authorised place of school till 09.09.2002 was Kisanrao Patil High School, Poharadevi and after 09.09.2002 it has been shifted to Sewadas Dharmshala, Pohradevi. Our attention has also been invited to some earlier orders passed by this Court. 2 Perusal of papers show that services of present petitioners were terminated by management on 19.08.1999 and that termination was questioned by them before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal dismissed their appeal and Writ Petitions are pending before learned Single Judge of this Court. The termination is on the ground of the fact that the petitioners were not working at authorised place of the school, to which they were transferred i.e. Bittergaon. We find that whether petitioners were working in authorised school or not, has to be decided in appeal filed by them challenging their termination, because their not working in the school is the reason for their termination. Contention of Shri Khapre, the learned Counsel is that the school Tribunal cannot grant petitioners/employees the relief of payment of wages for the period prior to their termination. However, we find that if the termination of petitioners itself is for false reason, then the learned Single Judge or the School Tribunal has to accept that the petitioners were working in authorised school and hence their claim for salary revives thereafter. Thus every thing depends on the adjudication of this aspect by the learned Single Judge. In the present Writ Petitions, at this stage we cannot consider the entitlement of the petitioners to salary either for period prior to their termination or for period after their termination. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed, without any order as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.