1 lpa133.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3657 OF 2010 (Dr.) Mrs. Pratima Anant Sathe ..Appellant Vs. The Secretary, Maharashtra Education Society & Others .. Respondents Mr.A.M. Sathe husband of the appellant is present. Mr.Shrikant Kad h/for Kalyani Pathak for the Respondents. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3657 of 2010. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was to the order passed by the School Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.22 of 2007, by which order the School Tribunal rejected the application of the applicant, which was in connection with giving full benefits of back wages, which order was passed in earlier proceedings. 2. In earlier point of time, the services of the petitioner was terminated, 2 lpa133.11.sxw which order was set aside by the School Tribunal. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service. Subsequently, again he was terminated against which he preferred the appeal before the School Tribunal, which appeal was also allowed by the Tribunal. The writ petition filed by the Management was dismissed. The petitioner was reinstated. The dispute remained only with regard to the back wages and other consequential benefits. After a couple of rounds of further litigation upto this Court, ultimately the Management deposited the amount of back wages for the period from 25-10-1999 to 31-10-2006 and the amount payable from June 1992 to 24-11-1999 remained unpaid. The School Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the appropriate calculations has not been produced, no relief in this behalf can be granted. The said order is challenged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single judge came to the conclusion that the actual pay scale which should be paid to the employee can always be determined by the Director of Education under section 4(3) of the MEPS Act. 3. Since no material was placed before us regarding the actual pay scale for which the petitioner is entitled from June 1992 to 24-11-1999, in our view, if the amount is paid less than the pay scale, the Director of Education can decide such question. Considering this aspect, we would not like to interfere in the order of learned Single Judge. The appellant is at liberty to approach the Director of Education in this behalf. If such an application is made before the Director of Education, the same shall be decided by him within 3 months from the receipt of the application. The Director of Education shall pass the order after hearing both the parties. 4. The Director of Education shall decide the application without being 3 lpa133.11.sxw influenced by any observations made by the School Tribunal. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)