Prabodhan Bahuvidh Sanstha Through Its President And Anothers v. Yogesh Sudhakar Mahalpure And Anothers

2024:BHC-AUG:16817 {1} 929 sr. Final.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5414 OF 2016 PRABODHAN BAHUVIDH SANSTHA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND ANOTHERS

VERSUS

YOGESH SUDHAKAR MAHALPURE AND ANOTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Tushar Shinde h/f. Mr.Shinde Chandrakant K.

Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Dr. Rajendra Godbole, ...

CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATE : 31st JULY, 2024.

ORDER :- 1.

The petitioner - management assailed the order dated 1.8.2015 passed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 22 of 2008, by which the termination of respondent No.1 has been quashed and set aside with further directions to pay the back wages to the tune of 30% from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Admittedly, by virtue of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has been reinstated in service in the year 2012. 2.

Now, the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent No.1 - employee have arrived at amicable settlement. The terms of compromise are placed on record of this Court and marked "X" for the purpose of identification.

3.

Parties were referred to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for verification of the terms of compromise. Accordingly, Registrar

{2} 929 sr. Final.odt (Judicial) submitted his report of verification stating that the terms of compromise were read over and explained to the parties and parties have signed the compromise. They have admitted the recitals in the compromise so also, signatures on it. In inquiry, they have submitted that they have voluntarily entered into compromise and no coercion, fraud or mis-representation has been exercised. 4.

Parties, alongwith their advocates presented themselves before this Court and re-affirmed the terms of compromise. Learned Advocate for respective parties have identified the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1, who are personally present in the Court. Parties have accepted the terms of compromise to be true and correct. 5.

Since respondent No.2 - Education Officer is not party to the compromise, the compromise will bind only the parties to this compromise and Education Officer would be entitled to take up independent decision as regards to any claim made against him, in accordance with law.

6.

In that view of the matter, writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the compromise.

[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR] JUDGE grt/-