1 W.P. 1289/1998 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1289 OF 1998 Erandol Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another .... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ............................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 12/07/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. Petitioner no. 1 is an Institution. It had started petitioner no.2 – college at Erandol, which is grant – in – aid. 2. One Mr. A.S.Patil was Principal of petitioner no. 2 – College. He was suspended and later on dismissed from service. Said Mr. Patil challenged the order of dismissal before the College Tribunal, Pune. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with back wages vide Order dated 2 W.P. 1289/1998 - ( J ) 14/11/1990. The said order was assailed by the petitioners by way of Writ Petition No. 140 of 1991, wherein this Court stayed the order of reinstatement but directed to pay back wages and future salary w.e.f. 1/4/1991. Accordingly, the management has paid the salary. 3. During the intervening period, the petitioners compromised Writ Petition No. 140 of 1991 with Mr. Patil, in which the present respondents were also parties. By the said compromise, the petitioners agreed to pay Rs. 1,43,038/- to said Shri. Patil towards full and final settlement. This amount and the amount earlier paid to Mr. Patil is claimed by the petitioners against the respondents on the count that the Institution is grant – in – aid and the respondent no. 2 has to make the payment of the said amount paid by the petitioners to said Mr. Patil. 4. The respondents have not disputed the payment of the said amount of Rs. 1,43,038/-. It is also not disputed that in place of Mr. Patil, no other person was appointed. There is no question of the dual payment of the said amount. It is stated that even the respondents have sanctioned the pension to said Shri. Patil. 5. In view of the above, we pass the following order. The respondents shall pay Rs. 1,48,038/- to the petitioners on account of the amount paid by the petitioners to said Mr. Patil as per compromise within the period of six months from today. 3 W.P. 1289/1998 - ( J ) 6. In light of above, Rule is made absolute on above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1289.98