Deelip Mahadeorao Tangadpalliwar v. Shivshakti Shikshan Sanstha Kotha (Veni), Thr. President Shri. Dinesh P. Bhore And Others

(1) 8wp5402.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5402/2021 Deelip Mahadeorao Tangadpalliwar .Vs. Shivshakti Shikshan Sanstha, Kotha (Veni) through its President, Dinesh P. Bhore and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. Dhore, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. M. Naik, A.G.P. for respondent No.3.

CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

DATE :

MARCH 26, 2025 None for the petitioner.

2.

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-Management submits that dispute has been settled between the parties and in terms of the settlement the petitioner has been reinstated. Now, dispute is narrowed down to the recovery of wages for the period from 2008 till 2024. 3.

It appears that the petitioner approached the School Tribunal seeking direction against the Education Officer to pay the amount of wages for the said period, which the School Tribunal has declined and, to my mind, rightly so. The School Tribunal has declined to grant relief against the Education Officer. The payment of wages, if any, can only be claimed from the employer. The Education Officer is not employer of the petitioner. The School Tribunal is said to have observed that the management has already paid the amount. The other part of the order is said to be complied with by the management. 4.

Thus, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. Even otherwise, none appeared for the petitioner today. Similar was the status when the matter was called on 09.12.2024. 5.

It is, thus, evident that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be served on the petitioner who may take appropriate action, if so desired.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) Kahale