1 CA-2225-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2225 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4984 OF 2011 Biru Ganpati Lokhande ..Applicant Vs The President, Malludevi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. ..Respondents ­­ Mr.A.M.Joshi, for applicant. Mr.M.S.Topkar, for respondent for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.P.B.Sawant, AGP for respondent no.3. ­­ CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 14 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.A.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.M.S.Topkar, learned counsel for opponent nos.1 and 2 and 2 CA-2225-11.sxw Mr.P.B.Sawant, learned AGP for respondent no.3. 2] The applicant is respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.4984 of 2011. The said petition was filed by opponent nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment and order dated 7 th March, 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Appeal No. 11 of 2009. By that order, the School Tribunal allowed the appeal and declared that the termination order dated 8 th July, 2008 is illegal, improper and unjust and the same was quashed and set aside. Opponent nos.1 and 2 herein were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits. The School Tribunal also held that the applicant is entitled to get full back wages from the date of termination i.e.8 th July, 2008 till date of this order. 3] The above Writ Petition was admitted on 15 th July, 2011 and, subject to opponent nos.1 and 2 herein depositing 1/3 rd of full back wages as per the impugned order from the date of order as also subject to opponent nos.1 and 2 herein reinstating the applicant herein, stay was granted. 3 CA-2225-11.sxw 4] Mr.Topkar states that pursuant to order dated 15 th July, 2011, the applicant was reinstated and he has deposited 1/3 rd amount of full back wages in this Court. Mr.Joshi submitted that though the applicant was reinstated, after inquiry he was again terminated and against that termination order, he has filed substantive appeal before the School Tribunal which is pending. He submits that the interim order may be vacated and in the alternative, the amount deposited by opponent nos.1 and 2 may be permitted to be withdrawn. 5] After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the prayer clause (c) of the application in so far as seeking permission to withdraw the amount subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial­I) is reasonable. 6] Hence, the applicant herein is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by opponent nos.1 and 2 herein, subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial­I) within eight weeks from today. It is made clear that in case the applicant fails to furnish the security within the stipulated time, the amount deposited by opponent nos.1 and 2 shall be invested in any 4 CA-2225-11.sxw nationalised bank to the credit of this Writ Petition, initially for a period of three years which shall be renewed during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Civil Application is disposed of. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]