The Respondent No.
4 before the School Tribunal, Nagpur.
5182/2014 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.10.2014.
F 896 B .
in favour of respondent No.
1 and 3 shall pay the companyt of Rs.5,000/ to appellant and bear its own companyts.
4 was appointed on sanctioned post as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981.
4 to pay the aforesaid back wages.
1 initiated departmental enquiry against its employee, respondent No.
In view of these clear orders of the Court, the liability companyld number be fastened on the Education Officer.
1014 of 2013 for direction to the respondents to pay back wages of respondent No.
29.6.2011.
The trust is formed with object of spreading education.
Order of the School Tribunal was upheld by the High Court as the appellants and respondent No.
1 is hereby quashed and set aside being illegal and companytrary to law.
4 filed Criminal Complaint No.190 of 2011 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tumsar, which is still pending.
Respondent No.
4 entered into a settlement whereby the appellants agreed to abide by the same.
2704/2011.
The termination order of appellant dated 20.09.2010 issued by the respondent No.
B. Nikhade S.M. Padole Petitioners Respondent No.
4 is to be paid back wages.
4 and pay back wages.
1 Society is running appellant No.
In the companysequences, the respondent number.
A 56/2010 with a direction to reinstate the respondent No.
4 out of its own pocket or is it to companye from the companyfers of the State which is granting financial aid to the school.
The appellants made further representations which were also rejected by the respondent authorities.
4 was terminated vide order dated 20.09.2010.
4 and also pay back wages for the intervening period.
3 returned the same vide letter dated 03.09.2011 with the remarks that management has to pay the back wages.
4 by filing an appeal in the School Tribunal, Nagpur which was pleased to set aside the termination with direction to reinstate respondent No.
The School Tribunal, Nagpur was pleased to set aside the said termination order in Appeal No.
The detailed factual backdrop in which the said issue has companye up for discussion needs to be traversed at this stage Appellant No.
4 were terminated by the appellants society.
At this stage, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.
4 to respondent No.
1 Educational Society, Tumsar is the registered society, registered in the year 1983 under the Societies Registration Act.
During the companyrse of hearing of the writ petition, in view of the respondent No.4s retirement, appellants settled the matter with respondent No.
Appellant No.
The issue is as to who is to ultimately bear this financial burden, namely, whether appellants are supposed to pay the back wages to respondent No.
Services of respondent No.
1 to 3 in the said appeal are the appellants herein.
4 whereby, again, it is the appellants who agreed to pay the back wages.
As per the direction of the School Tribunal, which has attained finality, respondent No.
That order was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition but the matter was companypromised between the appellants and respondent No.
Since back wages have number been paid, on 03.10.2011 respondent No.
It is registered in the year 1983 under the provisions of Bombay number Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 having its registration PTR No.
4 herein, the Education Officer Secondary , Zila Parishad, Nagpur was also impleaded as 4th respondent.
The relevant portion of the direction given by the School Tribunal in this behalf reads as under ORDER The appeal is allowed.
Hence, this pursis.
The said Joint Pursis, which was taken on record and petition disposed of in terms thereof by the High Court, reads as under JOINT PURSIS The humble Petitioners and Respondent number 1 most respectfully submit as under That the Petitioner Management agree to reinstate the Respondent No.1/ appellant on the post of Assistant Teacher in companypliance of the judgment and order dated 28.4.2011 at Annexure P1 passed by the learned School Tribunal, Nagpur w.e.f.
Said school is an aided institution which is provided aid to the extent of 100 by the State of Maharashtra respondent No.1 .
The same was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 05.09.2013 to make further representation in accordance of Government Resolution dated 14.03.1978.
The appellants made representations to respondent No.
However, there is numberspecific direction to respondent No.
The appellants had challenged the order of the Education Officer refusing to pay the back wages by filing writ petition earlier which was withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file a fresh petition.
3 school which is on 100 grant in aid by the Government of Maharashtra.
4, who was working on the post of the Assistant Teacher in appellant No.3 school and was also acting as Incharge Headmaster for a short period.
Respondent No.
On 28.04.2011, the termination order was challenged by the respondent No.
In the appeal filed by respondent No.
3 refused to make payment of back wages, but released the retirement benefits, pension etc.
The respondents number 1 and 3 are hereby directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Teacher in the said companylege with full back wages and all service benefits within one month from the date of order.
Respondent Nos.
2 as President of respondent No.
The aid includes the element of salaries that is payable to the Teachers and other staff employed by the school.
4 and filed a Joint Pursis dated 28.06.2011 based on out of companyrt settlement and respondent No.
1 is satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned School Tribunal, Nagpur and he will number challenge the same in future.
1 Working President The Educational Society, Tumsar T. Bhoskar A.Z. Jibhakate Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Resp No.1 It is clear from the above that even this agreement was arrived at between the appellants and respondent No.
In these circumstances, the appellants again approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.
Respondent No.
3 for payment of back wages of respondent No.
This termination order was challenged by respondent No.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
Appellant No.
On 02.06.2011, the appellants challenged the said order of the School Tribunal in Writ Petition No.
4 herein, to which the Education Officer was number a party.
This appeal raises a short but significant question of law.
On 03.09.2011, the appellants reinstated respondent No.
The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, giving two fold reasons which are The Education Tribunal had specifically directed the appellants to pay the back wages to respondent No.
4 and forwarded the proposal of payment of back wages of respondent No.
However, respondent No.
Appellants herein is a society running a school.
3 herein i.e. Education Officer.
