1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3013 OF 2010 Smt. Arshiya Naaz d/o Abdul Samad, Age 37 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher, Talat High School, Barudgar Nala, Aurangabad, R/o Silk Milk Colony, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Talat Shikshan Mandal, through its President, Mahmood-ur-Rahman Siddiqui, 1-4-62, Kabadipura, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. 2. Head Mistress, Talat High School, Kabadipura, Aurangabad, 3. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.P. Gour, Advocate for the petitioner Shri A.M. Karad, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent No.3 ..... 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 9th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at this stage. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period 29.3.2008 to 31.3.2010 and also prays that the respondents be directed to grant approval to the proposal sent by the management in respect of the petitioner. 3. It appears that, the petitioner came to be appointed in the year 1994 and the services of the petitioner were terminated some time in 1999. The petitioner filed appeal before the School Tribunal, which appeal came to be dismissed by the School Tribunal. The petitioner, being thus aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal filed Writ Petition No.3919/2002 in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and 3 respondent management. Consequent thereto, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. The observations of the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 10 and 11 in the judgment dated 28.3.2008 may usefully be referred thus : “10. At this stage, Shri Kakade, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of intevenor submits that service of the intervenor be protected for a period of 4 weeks from today. The intervenor was neither party before School Tribunal nor in this proceedings and there is no interim relief passed by this Court in the present petition which can be continued for further period of 4 weeks. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the request made by the intervenor. 11. Shri Godbole, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that they have apprehension that Education Officer would not accept the proposal of petitioner for approval. He, therefore, submits that a direction be issued to the Education Officer to consider the proposal of the petitioner for approval. As already observed hereinabove, it has been made clear that respondent no.3 Education Officer would be at liberty to take such decision as permission in accordance with law. The apprehension that Education Officer would not act in accordance with law appears to be totally ill founded. The authorities are always expected and presumed to act in accordance with law. I, therefore, do 4 not find any necessity to issue the directions as requested. “ 4. The terms of the compromise also stipulate that a necessary sanction would be obtained from the Education Department regarding the payment of the arrears of the salary. Mr. Karad, learned counsel for the respondent/ management states on instructions that the proposal for grant of approval as well as the salary bills of the petitioner for the period for which arrears are prayed for in this petition have been submitted to the Education Officer on 4.7.2008 and the pay bills have been sent in April 2010. Mr. Karad, therefore, states that, it would be appropriate to direct the Education Officer to decide the proposal for grant of approval as well as the question of payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner. 5. In the light of the observations of the learned Single Judge, adverted to above, we allow this petition to the limited extent of directing the Education Officer to decide the proposal of the management for grant of approval to the petitioner as well as decide the question of payment of arrears of salary ot the petitioner, if the aforesaid are pending consideration with the Education Officer. The Education Officer to decide the proposal as well as the question of payment of salary to the petitioner within four weeks from today and 5 communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner as well as the respondent/ management. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 7. It is needless to state that, if the orders passed by the Education Officer are adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner would have the liberty of challenging the same. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)