[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A. NO.383 OF 2008 IN C.A.NO.2125 OF 2007 AND REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.1539 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.6022 OF 2002 The President/Secretary, Gramin Shikshan Sanstha ..Appellant Vs. Rajendra Vasant Zope & Anr. ..Respondents .... R.S.Apte Senior Advocate i/b Vaibhav Patankar for Appellant S.C.Prabhu for Respondent No.1 V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 06, 2009 DATE : MARCH 06, 2009 DATE : MARCH 06, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Appellant is a registered society which runs English High School and Jr.College. Respondent No.1 was an assistant teacher in the said school. Respondent No.1 came to be terminated. Respondent No.1 approached the school tribunal praying for reinstatement and continuity of service with back [-2-] wages. The school tribunal directed that respondent no.1 be reinstated. The said decision was challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition No.6022 of 2002 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Respondent filed Civil Application No.2125 of 2007 stating therein that though pursuant to the directions of the tribunal, Management had reinstated him in service, however, he has not been paid his salary for last four years. Hence, he prayed for necessary releifs. It was contended by the Appellant that as Respondent no.4 has not advanced the grant, they could not pay the salary of Respondent No.1. Moreover, as Writ Petition No.6022 of 2002 was pending hearing, they did not pay the salary of Respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge observed that the primary responsibility for payment of salary is that of the management and hence, the Appellant was directed to pay salary of Respondent no.1 whether or not grant is given by the Government to the Appellant. 3. Thereafter, Review Petition came to be filed by the Appellant-Management stating therein that they had been deleted in the array of parties in Writ [-3-] Petition No.6022 of 2002 and therefore, no order ought to have been passed against the Institution. Review was also sought on the ground that Government had issued letters dated 3.11.2007 and 1.11.2008 indicating that it was not liable to make payment of the salary. The said review petition came to be rejected. We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that primary responsibility for payment of salary is that of the Management and whether or not the grant is given by the Government to the Institution, the College has to pay salary of respondent no.1. We find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, LPA is dismissed. 4. It is seen that the subject matter of the Civil Application was in respect of the issue relating to payment of salary. The main writ petition is still pending. As far as other issues are concerned, all contentions of both the parties are kept open. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]