1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2004. PETITION NO.89 OF 2004. PETITION NO.89 OF 2004. Mrs.Manisha P. Kulkarni : Petitioner versus Gokhale Education Society and ors. : Respondents. Mr.N.P.Shimpi for the Petitioner Mr.M.B.Mehere for Respondent No.1 to 3 & 5. Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/by Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for Respondent No.8. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.B.MHASE & S.S.SHINDE, JJ. : S.B.MHASE & S.S.SHINDE, JJ. : S.B.MHASE & S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : APRIL 15, 2008. : APRIL 15, 2008. : APRIL 15, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Leave to delete Respondent No.8 is granted to the petitioner. Amendment to be carried out 2 forthwith. 2. Heard the parties. Earlier the petitioner had approached to this Court for implementation of the order dated 15.2.2000 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.NSK-20/1999. That writ petition, being Writ Petition No.3243 of 2001, was disposed of in view of the statement made by the Management that they are ready to obey the order of the School Tribunal. It appears thereafter that an order has been issued by the Management intimating the petitioner that in view of the order of the School Tribunal and High Court’s order in W.P.No.3243 of 2001, the petitioner is reinstated. The said order is dated 16.3.2002. In fact, the Management should have issued an order to the petitioner in terms of the order of the School Tribunal viz. firstly, the Management should have withdrawn termination order; secondly the Management should have ordered reinstatement of the petitioner; thirdly, the Management should have stated that the petitioner is reinstated with the back-wages and; fourthly the Management should have informed to the petitioner that the petitioner is reinstated with continuity of service. But instead of that, an evasive order has been passed by the Management and, therefore, we direct the Management to correct the 3 order dated 16.3.2002 and to issue an order as observed by us in this order and in consonance with the order of the School Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today. We further direct that the Management shall pay all the back-wages of the petitioner within two weeks from today to the petitioner. The Management is at liberty to make a proposal to the Government of Maharashtra for reimbursement of the these backwages, if permissible under law. We also observe that the Government may consider the said proposal in accordance with law and we make it clear by these observations that we have not given any direction to the Government to pay the amount but shall consider the proposal of the Management in accordance with law and, if the Management is eligible and entitled for reimbursement, the said reimbursement shall be given to the Management. If there is any dispute in respect of calculation of salary, that dispute shall be decided by the concerned Deputy Director and his decision shall be final. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, J] [S.B.MHASE, J] J] [S.B.MHASE, J] J] [S.B.MHASE, J]