WP/6020/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6020 OF 2010 Gram Vikas Seva Mandal, Nashik & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Pramod Kautik Shewale & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.M. Sathaye for the Petitioners. Ms. Kumud A. Bhatia for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 14 TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner- Management contending that the order of the School Tribunal, Nashik dated 17th June, 2010 passed in Appeal No.9 of 2010 is illegal. The School Tribunal has found that the respondent No.1 was prevented from signing the muster roll from 2nd January, 2010 and his services were orally terminated on 25th January, 2010. The School Tribunal has found that these orders were illegal and has therefore granted reinstatement to the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and back- wages. 2. Mr. Sathaye, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Management, submits that the respondent No.1 had WP/6020/2010 2 in fact abandoned his post and that the petitioner-Management had not terminated his services at any point of time. Mr. Sathaye further submits that in any event the petitioners are willing to reinstate the respondent No.1 subject to the result of the Writ Petition (St.) No.24245 of 2010. He submits that the petitioner-Management may also file a Petition challenging the initial appointment of respondent No.1 in service. According to Mr. Sathaye the concession of the petitioner-Management to permit the respondent No.1 to join service immediately will not preclude the petitioner- Management from raising their contention and objection regarding the initial appointment of the respondent No.1 in service. 3. Mr. Sathaye also objects to the back-wages being paid to the respondent No.1 on the ground that there was no evidence before the Court to grant back-wages. 4. Considering the submissions of Mr. Sathaye, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, and Ms. Bhatia, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1, in my opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice. WP/6020/2010 3 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i). The petitioners shall reinstate the respondent No.1 in service within a period of two weeks from today. It is obvious that for the petitioners to comply with the order, respondent No.1 must be present for resuming his duties with the petitioners. The respondent No.1 shall report for duty on 21st October, 2010 at 11 a.m. (ii). As regards back-wages, admittedly no other person was employed in place of respondent No.1 during this period. In these circumstances, the petitioners may forward all the salary bills with respect to the back-wages payable to respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks after he reports for duty. The State Government will disburse the salary in accordance with law. WP/6020/2010 4 (iii). The reinstatement of the respondent No.1 in service will not preclude the petitioners from raising any objection regarding his initial appointment in service in any proceedings which may be pending today or which may be filed henceforth.