1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1054/2010. Pandurang Gulabrao Bokre and others -VERSUS- Commissioner for Tribal Development and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2011. Heard finally by consent of Shri N.R. Saboo, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri P.N. Shende, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Rule, returnable forthwith. After our earlier orders dated 02.09.2011, except petitioner no.1, other petitioners have joined their respective duties. 2 In respect of petitioner no.1, respondent no.4 has contended that his services were terminated in 2008 itself. We have perused the order of termination dated 23.01.2008. The order shows that petitioner no.1 had allegedly refused to accept it. Respondent no.4 claims that thereafter it was forwarded through R.P.A.D. to petitioner no.1 and he did not accept that envelop. The learned Counsel for petitioner no.1 has however, pointed out that petitioner no.1 has continued to receive salary till September, 2009 as an employee of the very same school. The communication dated 20.01.2010 sent by the Project Officer to the Headmaster of the School shows name of petitioner no.1 along with other petitioners and a direction to School to permit them to join duties. In this situation, it is apparent that the alleged order of termination issued by respondent no.4 on 23.01.2008 has not come into force. 3 Shri Saboo, learned Counsel for petitioners invites out attention to certain other subsequent communications to explain how the Administrator was appointed. Shri Shende, learned counsel for respondent has contended that the Administrator has not taken previous management into confidence and what Administrator has done in relation to services of petitioner no.1 who was already terminated is not known to respondent no.4. In this situation, it is apparent that as order dated 23.01.2008 has not come into force, the respondent no.4 cannot prohibit the petitioner no.1 from joining duties. We therefore, direct respondent no.4 to permit petitioner no.1 to join his duties. The petitioner no.1 to report for duties on 19.09.2011 at 11 a.m. and if he is not permitted to join, then on 21.09.2011 he will report for duties in presence of respondent no.3-Project Officer. 4 Shri Saboo, learned counsel states that he is not pressing prayer clause (1). He further states that petitioners will make representation to the department and to school for release of their salary. In this situation, we find that grievance of petitioners in the petition is redressed. Petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd