ra20.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 20 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2259 OF 2010 Dipesh Bhaurao Pardeshi ...Applicant Versus Sanjivani Gramin Shikshan Sanstha & Anr ...Respondents ..... Mr. Vinod Patil, advocate for the applicant Mr. Narendra D. Sonwane, advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for respondent No. 1 ..... CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED: 28TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 19.1.2011 passed in writ petition No. 2259 of 2010. The relevant paragraph of the said order reads thus:- “2] This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 rendered by the Presiding Officer, University & College Tribunal, Pune, whereby the order of termination dated 26.4.2007 issued by the petitioner against ra20.11 -2- respondent No.1 has been set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without entering into merits of the case, he has instructions to make a statement that if respondent no.1 is ready to forgo his claim over the back wages, they are prepared to reinstate him with continuity of service. Shri S.R. Barlinge, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that respondent No.1 is ready to forgo his claim over the back wages as directed to be paid in the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2009 of the Tribunal and that he is prepared to resume on duty from 01.02.2011. Shri V.D. Hon, on instructions, submits that petitioner will allow him to join duties on his reporting on 01.02.2011. The statements made by learned counsel for the parties are accepted. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order. The petition is partly allowed. The directions to pay back wages issued by the Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner is directed to reinstate respondent no.1 with effect from 01.02.2011 and shall give him continuity of service. Respondent No.1 to report on 01.02.2011. It is made clear that this order is passed without examining the merits of the case and on the basis of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties. It is needless to mention that once respondent no.1 joins, the petitioner shall pay him regular salary.” 2 The respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit in reply opposing the prayer made in the review application and in para Nos. 3 to 6 it is ra20.11 -3- stated thus:- “3. I say that the matter was argued for some time by the advocate for the petitioner on 19.1.2011. The counsel for the respondent was heard by the court for some time. I say that I was very much present in the court at the time of argument. I say that on behalf of the petitioner Sanstha it was submitted that the management would reinstate the respondent employee immediately in service, however, if he is ready to give up his clam for back wages. I say that the advocate for the petitioner had also pointed out that the said employee is gainfully employed elsewhere and therefore, there is no material on record to come to the conclusion for grant of back wages. 4. I say that on the said suggestion the Hon’ble Court had asked the advocate for the employee to take instructions from his client as to whether he is agreeable to the suggestion and ready to give up his claim for back wages and as to when he would be resuming duties. I say that the advocate for the respondent had requested some time from the Court to take necessary instructions. Accordingly the matter was kept back for some time. 5 I say that the matter was thereafter called out and the advocate for the respondent had made a statement which has been recorded in the impugned order that the respondent No.1 is ready to forgo his claim over the back wages as directed by the impugned order and that he has prepared to resume duty on 1.2.2011. The Hon’ble Court has also further recorded a statement of the petitioner’s advocate that the Sanstha would ra20.11 -4- permit the respondent to join the duties on his reporting on 1.2.2011. I say that accordingly the petition was partly allowed. 6 I say that the petitioner Sanstha had collected the certified copy of the order dated 19.1.2011 and were expecting that the respondent employee would resume the duties on 1.2.2011. He has not resumed the duties either on 1.2.2011 or any time thereafter. I say that he is not even bother to communicate the petitioner Sanstha. I say that from the said conduct of the respondent it can be inferred that he is not interested in the service but any how he wants to extract money without putting any service with the petitioner management. I say that the order passed by this Hon'ble court on 19.1.2011 is specific and there is no ambiguity in the order. I say that the application for review filed by the applicant seeking review, vary and modification of the order is filed without any basis.” 3 It is true that time was sought and it was granted and thereafter the statement was made, as recorded in the order. The petitioner in review application has stated that he never instructed his advocate to forgo his claim over the back wages. Having considered the controversy involved and that it is “word against word” involving the advocate, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to recall the order dated 19.1.2011. The order accordingly. ra20.11 -5- 4 The writ petition No. 2259 of 2010 is restored to file. Office to place the said writ petition for admission before the appropriate Court after two weeks. *****