1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4293/2009. ( Bhartiya Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan sanstha -: versus :- Surajratan P. Dekate and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2009. Heard Shri H.D. Harode, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri P.N. Shende, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. The matter was heard earlier and was adjourned to enable the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 to find out whether respondent no.1 teacher is in a position to give up any back wages. Today Shri Shende, learned counsel fairly states that in view of of the reinstatement on 8.11.2009, respondent no.1 teacher has agreed to waive 10% of back wages and he seeks remaining 40%. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that there was no termination at all and grant of back wages is totally unsustainable and the direction to that effect as contained in the order of the School Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside. 2 Learned A.G.P. has supported the impugned order and he contends that there is no question of any back wages being paid by the department in the matter. The School Tribunal has while setting aside the order of termination dated 28.09.1996, granted reinstatement to respondent no.1 teacher as Peon with 50% back wages. Because of the concession given by respondent no.1, his entitlement is reduced to 40% back wages. The School Tribunal has found that there was otherwise termination on 28.09.1996, though the petitioners have attempted to demonstrate that there was no termination, they have never initiated any proceeding for declaring respondent no.1 as deserter, or absconding from services and they also not called upon him to join back his duties. The entire correspondence shows that there was effort to bring pressure on him by asking him to furnish his caste certificate and related document. The respondent no.1 claims that though the documents were /are already supplied at the time of initial employment, learned counsel for petitioners states that this is a false statement. It is apparent that, whether the documents are supplied or not, caste claim of respondent no.1 needs to be scrutinzed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as per the provisions of Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001. The said claim has not been invalidated till date. In these circumstances, I do not find any thing wrong with the findings reached by the Tribunal. No case is made out warranting interference in so far as the relief of reinstatement is concerned. In view of the consent given by respondent no.1, back wages payable to him are reduced to 3 40% and the order of the school tribunal impugned before this Court, is modified only to that extent. Liberty to respondent no.1 to recover those back wages through machinery of Education Department or otherwise, if the same are not paid to him by 31.01.2010. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.