IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3357 OF 2009 Mrs. Kulkarni Anupama A. ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Matade Pushpa Tukaram And Another ... Respondents --- Shri R.S. Khadapkar for Petitioner Shri A.P. Vanarase i/b Smt. Samidha Dongre and J.M. Tanpure for Respondent No.2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 25TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner, by this petition, is challenging the impugned order dated 18.10.1993 whereby, the School Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the Respondent herein and directed that the Respondent No.1 is deemed to be promoted to be post of head master with effect from 3.10.1993 with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. In the said petition rule was granted and subsequently interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner was admitted. However, the Petitioner herein continued to work on the post of head master since the Respondent No.1 was promoted as a head master in the other school in the place of one Mr. Bankar. The Petitioner continued to work in the capacity of head master till 8th June, 2007. In the meantime, this petition was dismissed by order dated 12.12.2008 and however, subsequently this petition was restored on 15.6.2007. The Petitioner, therefore, has worked as a head mistress till 2007. Thereafter, however, she did not reported on duty after she was demoted by the management to the post of Assistant Teacher. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the contesting Respondent No.1 has retired and thereafter, she expired and, therefore, to that extend, the petition has become infructuous. He, however, submits that the Petitioner is willing to forgo her claim from June, 2007 and the Petitioner may be deemed to have tendered her resignation. 4. Shri Vanarase, the learned Counsel for the Management has tendered a letter dated 25.6.2009 issued by the Secretary, Nutan Maharashtra Vidya Prasarak Mandal. In the said letter, the Secretary has stated that the management is willing to accept her resignation with effect from 8.6.2007 and is willing to give the legal retirement benefits from the said date onwards. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that after taking instructions from the Petitioner, who is present in the Court that this proposal is acceptable to her. Accordingly, the Petitioner deemed to have retired from 8.6.2007 and she would be entitled to get all the benefits as head mistress from that date onwards. While calculating the retirement benefits, the increments which the Petitioner was entitled as a head mistress for having worked from 1992 to 2007 also be taken into consideration by the Education Officer and other retirement benefits to be calculated. 6. The Petitioner is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 7. The Petitioner is at liberty to claim the benefits of the increments, if any, for having worked as a head mistress from 1992 to 2007 before the appropriate forum. V.M. KANADE J. In both these writ petitions, the following questions are called for consideration before this Court: (i) Whether appeals which are filed before the Grievance Committee prior to the Amendment Act No.14 of 2007 and which are pending after the amendment came into effect should be transferred to the School Tribunal which is constituted under the M.E.P.S. Act. (ii) Whether the appeals which were filed before the Amendment Act No.14 of 2007 and were decided by the Grievance Committee after the Amendment Act are valid and proper or these appeals should also be again reopened and transferred to the School Tribunal. (iii) Whether if it is held that the Amendment Act No.14 of 2007 has retrospective effect then whether the appeals which are provided either to the Grievance Committee or to the School Tribunal would also have a retrospective effect. (v) Whether irrespective of the Amendment Act coming into force, whether on completion of three years or 30 months of service as Shikshan Sevak, whether the School Tribunal would have jurisdiction on the Shikshan Sevak completing 30 months of service irrespective of the fact whether this takes place before the Amendment Act comes in question.