(1) WP. 5162.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5162 OF 2010 Rajendra S/o Nanasaheb Pathak, Age : 36 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi, District : Ahmednagar .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidhya Prasarak Samaj, Laltaki Road, Ahmednagar, through its Secretary 2. The Headmaster, Shri Vriddheshwar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar .. RESPONDENTS ... Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the respondent no.1. He (2) WP. 5162.2010 was terminated from service w.e.f. 29.7.2009. He immediately preferred an appeal (Appeal no.63 of 2009) before the School Tribunal, Solapur. His appeal was admitted for hearing and interim stay was granted on 6.11.2009. There is no dispute about the fact that in view of the interim relief granted in his favour, the petitioner was reinstated immediately and joined the duty on 23.11.2009. He worked as Assistant Teacher since then and is continued to remain in service till the date. The appeal was ultimately allowed by the School Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20.3.2010. While allowing the appeal, however, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated and payment to the extent of 50% of the backwages from the date of termination till the reinstatement shall be made available to him. 3. Counsel would submit that since the petitioner has worked on the post as full fledged teacher, during the relevant period, between 23.11.2009 till the date of decision of the School (3) WP. 5162.2010 Tribunal, he is entitled to receive the entire regular salary and that for the earlier period of about 4 months, with effect from 29.7.2009, he was entitled to receive the full salary because of the fact that within such short period, he could not have been re-employed in any other institution as a School Teacher, nor there is any evidence to show that he had been so employed. The limited request, therefore, is that the petitioner’s claim for 100% salary may be allowed. 4. Mr. Hon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, however, supports the impugned judgment to the extent of the direction regarding 50% of backwages but submits further that if such direction is de-clamped then, the respondent no.1 may be permitted to submit the bills to the respondent no.3 as it is aided school. 5. There is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Shinde. It is improbable that within a period of 2-3 months the petitioner could (4) WP. 5162.2010 have been re-employed in any other institution. One cannot be oblivious of the plight of such a School Teacher who is required to run from pillar to post while challenging the illegal termination. It is more probable that the petitioner was required to commute from place of his residence to the Office of the lawyer to whom the brief was entrusted. The ground realities ought to be well appreciated. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal did not consider the fact that the petitioner had joined the duty only after about 3-4 months in view of the interim stay and, therefore, was entitled to 100% salaries for the period he had worked on the post in the school run by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has not challenged the judgment and order of the School Tribunal regarding reinstatement of the petitioner. Considering these aspects, the impugned judgment to the extent of direction to grant 50% backwages from the date of termination till reinstatement of the petitioner is contrary to the proportionality, legal principles and will have to be set aside. (5) WP. 5162.2010 6. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The directions enumerated in paragraph no.3 of the impugned judgment are set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to the entire salary from date of illegal termination i.e. 29th July, 2009 till the date of reinstatement and for a further period. The respondent no.1 may submit the bills to the respondent no.3 for the arrears of salary due to the petitioner, if any, within a reasonable period of two months. Rule made absolute accordingly. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp