← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4408/1997disposed offdismissed for default

Shahada Tq.Co-Operative Education Society. v. The Dy.Director Of Education Of Nasik And Others.

2017-01-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.140 OF 1998 (Shahada Taluka Co-operative Education Society and another Vs. Surekha Girdhar Patil and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4408 OF 1997 (Shahada Taluka Co-operative Education Society and another Vs. The Dy.Director of Education,Nashik and others) Mr.Aashish M.Manglani h/f Mr.S.P.Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Devdhe h/f Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for respondent No.1 in WP No.140/1998.

Mr.S.P.Tiwari, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP No.140/1998. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 12/01/2017 PER COURT :

1.

In the first petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 20/09/1996 granting reinstatement and back wages with continuity to respondent No.1 / employee. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad has filed an affidavit in reply dated 20/02/2001 indicating in paragraph No. 6 that the dispute between the parties has been settled, the employee has been reinstated, she is getting her regular salary and permanent approval has been granted by the Deputy director of Education.

2.

The respondent/employee has filed an affidavit dated khs/JAN.2017/140-d

23/02/2001 indicating in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 that she has been reinstated in service, has been given continuity, has been granted permanent approval by the Education Department and has received a total amount of Rs.1,49,708/- towards back wages and she has no grievance about the said payment.

3.

Considering the above, the first petition WP No.140/1998 is rendered infructuous and is disposed of. Rule is discharged. 4.

In the second petition, the petitioner/Management has challenged certain directions issued by the Education Department in favour of the respondent/employee Smt.Surekha Girdhar Patil. The order of granting approval dated 23/06/1997 is challenged and the alleged guarantee letter dated 16/02/1995 has also been questioned. The guarantee letter has been furnished by the respondent/employee Smt.Patil.

5.

Considering the above recorded settlement between the parties, the grievance does not survive. Consequentially, WP No.4408/1997 is also rendered infructuous and is disposed of. Rule is discharged. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) khs/JAN.2017/140-d