IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4286 OF 2000 Mr.Innus Dada Hajarat Kazi ..... Petitioner V/s. Mr.Sampat Aba Jadhavar & Ors. ...... Respondents Mr.S.B.Patwardhan, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.M.Joshi, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP, for Respondent No.3. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 04, 2008. P.C. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune at Solapur, in Appeal No.193 of 1993. The said appeal was filed by respondent No.1 herein. The case of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was that he is M.A., B.Ed., and belonging to DTNT category. According to the appellant, he was having better claim for promotion as Head of D.Ed. College, as against the present petitioner. The claim was in connection with the Head of D.Ed. College. According to respondent No.1 the post in question was reserved for backward class and therefore, he was entitled for promotion as per fifty point model roster. The Tribunal by the impugned order, set aside the 2 promotion of the present petitioner as Head of Junior College of Education and the Management was directed to promote respondent No.1 as Head of the Junior College of Education from 01-12-1991. 2. During the pendency of this petition, the impugned order was stayed by this Court. At the time of hearing, it is pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has already retired by way of superannuation and that till his retirement, he continued as Head of Junior College of Education. 3. The learned Counsel Mr.Joshi for respondent No.1 has also submitted that the petitioner has now retired by way of superannuation and considering the fact that till retirement the petitioner continued as Head of Junior College, now this matter is not required to decide further. He submitted that from the date on which the petitioner retired, the management is required to implement the order of the Tribunal. 4. Since it is not in dispute that till retirement petitioner continued as Head of Junior College of Education, he was entitled to get salary and other benefits available to the said post. Under this circumstance, the respondent No.2 & 3 are restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioner in view of the fact that he continued to work as Head till his retirement. Mr.Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has fairly 3 submitted that respondent No.1 will not claim any arrears of salary for the period during which the petitioner was discharging his duties as Head. 4. In view of the above statements, the petition stands disposed of as having become infructous. However, it is directed that no amount should be recovered from the salary and other dues if any, from the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner has retired as Head of Junior College of Education by way of superannuation. It is for the respondent No.2 to now act as per the order of the Tribunal. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )