1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 273 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 3992 of 2005 (D) Rajaram Pusaji Bansod ...VERSUS.. Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. P.N.Shende, Advocate for the Petitioner. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 12th July, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17/2/2010, rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3992/2005. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the judgment and oder dated 08/4/2005, passed by School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. STN 394/1993, whereby the Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, by setting aside the order of his termination dated 29/11/1993 and by giving him 25% backwages till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30/4/1998. 2 3] The only contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant was that the tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge ought to have granted him more than 25% back wages. He submitted that merely because the appellant admitted that he was working in the shop of his son, cannot be a ground for not granting him full backwages. 4] We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, impugned in this appeal. The learned Single Judge, in paragraphs 12 and 13, has considered the very same submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and in our opinion, has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of the School Tribunal for the reasons recorded therein. The relevant paragraph nos.12 and 13, read thus : “12. The reliance by employee on the judgment in the case of Kishor vs. S.Kumars Group of Companies (supra) shows that there, the learned Single Judge has concluded that when relief of reinstatement is granted by quashing termination, the normal relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service has to follow. The judgment had no reason to consider the subsequent change of law which has been brought about in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 and other judgments on the point. The fact that there were no pleadings about availability of absence of gainful employment is an admitted position. The basic burden to bring entitlement is upon the employee. The School Tribunal has on the basis of material in departmental enquiry, drawn conclusion that the employee was assisting his son in some business. In these facts and particularly as School Tribunal has accepted the finding of misappropriation reached by Enquiry Committee, I do not find it 3 necessary to interfere with grant of 25% back wages to employee by the School Tribunal. 13. The employee is, therefore, entitled to relief of setting aside of termination order dated 29.11.1993 and to 25% back wages from 29.11.1993 till 30.4.1998. He is also entitled to pension and other retirement/terminal benefits in accordance with law as directed by School Tribunal in the judgment.” 5] We do not find any ground/reason worth considering to interfere with the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, in this appeal. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale