Swami Vivekanand Sevashram Sanstha ,Shirala, Sangli Thru Secretary, And ANR v. Shaikh Sadiq Gulmohamad And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3596 OF 2019 Hemant Rajaram Sawant and another WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2019 Hemant Rajaram Sawant and another WRIT PETITION NO.3483 OF 2019 Ramraje Hanmantrao Mane and another WRIT PETITION NO.3495 OF 2019 Ananda Chandru Jadhav and another BGP. 1 of 5

WRIT PETITION NO.3499 OF 2019 Sunil Sadhu Gholap and another WRIT PETITION NO.3503 OF 2019 Uttam Balwant Patil and another WRIT PETITION NO.3506 OF 2019 Shaikh Sadiq Gulmohamad and another WRIT PETITION NO.3586 OF 2019 Ramraje Hanmantrao Mane and another WRIT PETITION NO.3597 OF 2019 BGP. 2 of 5

Shaikh Sadiq Gulmohamad and another WRIT PETITION NO.3598 OF 2019 Uttam Balwant Patil and another WRIT PETITION NO.3601 OF 2019 Ananda Chandru Jadhav and another WRIT PETITION NO.3605 OF 2019 Sunil Sadhu Gholap and another Mr. Shriniwas S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the Petitioners in all Writ Petitions.

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sukumar R. Ghanavat, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in all Writ Petitions. BGP. 3 of 5

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

DATE : 25th MARCH, 2019 P.C.

1] The Petitioners have approached this Court contending therein that the learned members of the Grievance Committee have awarded the claim of the Respondents, which was rejected by the learned Tribunal while exercising powers under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

2] Perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that what was challenged before the learned Tribunal was the order of termination which was effected in the year 2015. The learned Tribunal while considering the application under the said Act, the first question that Tribunal was required to decide was as to whether the termination is legal or illegal. Only in the event, it is found that the termination is illegal, the question of backwages for the period subsequent to termination till the order of reinstatement would arise. The question of difference of salary to which the Petitioners were entitled prior to their termination and not actually paid was never and could have been decided in the proceeding BGP. 4 of 5

before the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we do not find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners. The Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

[DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] BGP. 5 of 5