1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8888 OF 2009 Kai Bapusaheb Hupre Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Petitioners. V/s. Laxmi Suryakant Bhosale & Ors. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9594 OF 2009 Kai Bapusaheb Hupre Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Petitioners. V/s. Laxmi Suryakant Bhosale & Ors. ...Respondents. ­­­­­ Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Yash Sakhare i/b YKS Legal, for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.I. Khemani, for Respondent No.2. ­­­­­­ CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4 th MARCH, 2010. P.C: 1. In Writ Petition No.8888 of 2009 rule has already been granted. In Writ Petition No.9594 of 2009, rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent both Writ Petitions are heard finally and 2 disposed of. 2. The Writ Petition No.8888 of 2009 is filed by the Petitioners’ management against the order of the School Tribunal directing them to promote Respondent No.1 as Head­Mistress of the Petitioner No.1 school managed by the second Respondent. The Writ Petition No.9594 of 2009 is filed against the order of the School Management setting aside the order terminating the service of Respondent No.1. 3. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. The reasons for the same are not insisted upon by the learned counsel for the parties. They also do not insist upon detail reasons for the rest of this order. 4. Mr. Sakhare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 i.e. Appellant before the School Tribunal stated that the Appellant does not insist on the implementation of the order in so far as prayer for grant of back wages is concerned. There is nothing on record to indicate the basis on which back wages were granted. However, in view of the fact that the first Respondent having given up the claim of back wages, it is not necessary to consider whether the matter to be remanded for considering the same afresh. Mr. Sakhare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 i.e. Appellant 3 also did not insist on reinstatement in the facts and circumstances of the present case as during the pendancy of the proceeding in another person has been appointed in place of Respondent No.1. This is so although appointment has been made subject to these proceedings. Accordingly, the claim to the Head­Master’s post is also given up unconditionally. 5. In view of the fact that the first Respondent having made the above statement regarding not insisting upon back wages and reinstatement as well as having given up her claim to the post of Head­Mistress, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 the Education Officer had not opposed the grant of benefits of continuity of service in favour of the first Respondent. In any event, the impugned order having been upheld, the first Respondent should be entitled for benefits of continuity of service. 6. The first Respondent No.1 was employed on 11.6.1990 and to avail benefits of retirement pension under the provision of rule 62 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the first Respondent would have to complete 20 years of service. The first Respondent would complete 20 years of service on 10.6.2010. There is, therefore short fall of about three months. Although I have upheld the impugned order, it would not be desirable only for the purpose of 4 formalities to permit her to work for three months. Instead it is desirable that the power of relaxation under the rule of the said provision is exercised. This is a fit case for consideration. By no stretch of imagination, the first Respondent can deny the full retirement pension merely because there is a short fall of three months for no fault whatsoever of the first Respondent who has. in fact, succeeded before the School Tribunal. 7. In the circumstances, both Writ Petitions are disposed of by accepting the above statements made by Mr. Sakhare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first Respondent, granting the first Respondent continuity of service throughout her tenure and relaxing the technical short fall of three months for the purpose of availing full retirement pension benefits. 8. The first Respondent shall have all retirement benefits including pension with effect from 11.6.2010. The Petitioners shall submit all the papers to the second Respondent and other parties for the purpose of first Respondent availing all her aforesaid benefits. The same shall be done on or before 31.5.2010. The first Respondent to co­operate in this regard. The second Respondent shall process the papers and the first Respondent’s entitlements as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks on the receipt 5 of necessary documents from the Petitioners and the first Respondent. 9. Needless to state that the first Respondent is always at liberty to adopt other proceedings or procedure in respect of report dated 5.12.2001 from the Standing Medical Board, General Hospital, Sangli. However, irrespective of the outcome of such proceedings or procedure, the statements made on behalf of the first Respondent as recorded by this order shall remain. 10. The aforesaid two Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs. All the parties are directed to act on an authenticated copy of this order.