FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1385/2007 (Abdul Sayeed Abdul Lateef vs. State of Mah. and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Sachin Khandekar, Adv. for the petitioner Shri S.Y.Deopujari, AGP, for R-1 & 3 Shri M.K.Pathan, Adv. for R-2 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 12 th JUNE, 2008. Heard counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the controversy brought before us is in the nature of clarifying the order passed by this Court on 24th April, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 1443/2001. By the said order, the dispute brought by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No. 1443/2001 was resolved in view of the joint pursis filed by the petitioner and the respondent – Corporation. It is seen that the State was not party to the said pursis. The terms agreed between the petitioner and the respondent – Corporation clearly indicate that the petitioner was to get continuity of service from academic year 2000-01. The problem which has been now brought before this Court is on account of the order passed by the Education Officer dated 13th April, 2006. The Education Officer has on the other hand taken the view that approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher is granted w.e.f. 1st July, 2000, however, at the same time, it is noted that the petitioner will not be entitled for salary for the break period specified in the order itself. Indeed, the Education Officer has taken that view on the basis of record available with his office. That view though appropriate, the question is whether the respondent- Corporation would be absolved from its obligation to pay salary to the petitioner for the break period, which the Education Officer has declined in the impugned order. In our opinion, in view of the joint pursis filed between the petitioner and the respondent- Corporation , it is not open to the respondent – Corporation to contend that the respondent Corporation is absolved from making any payment in respect of break period for which the Education Officer has declined to make any provision towards salary of the petitioner. In other words, the respondent- Corporation will be bound to make good the said loss of salary payable to the petitioner in respect of which no approval has been granted by the Education Officer. This arrangement would be consistent with the letter and spirit of the joint pursis filed before this Court. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent-Corporation to make good the amount towards salary for the break period specified by the Education Officer in the impugned order payable to the petitioner. That be paid within three months from today. Petition disposed of accordingly on above terms. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit