Partly allowed

N.E.S.High School and Another. v. Devendra Pitambar Patil and Others.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2011WP/2555/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted consent terms where a respondent agreed to reinstatement subject to back wages being released by the Education Officer. The writ petition was partly allowed, modifying the School Tribunal's judgment, but no financial obligation was imposed on the State responding parties.

What did the court decide?

Consent terms accepted as Exhibit X; impugned judgment of School Tribunal modified; no order as to costs.

N.E.S.High School and Another. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

wp2555.95

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2555 OF 1995

¶6

¶7

Registrar's orders |

¶8

Mr. L.V. Sangit holding for Mr. V. J.Dixit, Senior Counsel

¶9

for petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Suryawanshi holding for Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate

¶11

for respondent no.1

¶12

Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3 .

¶13

The parties have jointly tendered Consent Terms. Consent Terms are signed on each page by respondent no.1 and by Secretary i.e. petitioner no.2. On last page there are signatures of Headmaster for petitioner no.1 and of Secretary for petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.1 and of Counsel for respondent no.1. Similarly Counsel for petitioner also signed the Consent Terms, which disclose that the respondent no.1-Devendra is already reinstated in service and he has accepted that only if the Education Officer releases grants towards his back wages, then only he will be entitled to the same, otherwise he will not claim any back wages from the petitioners. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 states that such compromise can not bind the

¶14

¶15

wp2555.95

¶16

respondent nos.2 and 3 in any way.

¶17

Respondent no.1 present before the Court in person, has accepted that he has been reinstated and compromise as recorded is entered into between the parties. Respondent nos.1 and 2 with their respective Counsel also state similarly.

¶18

In view of the joint statement made by the parties along with their Advocates, Consent Terms are accepted and same are marked as Exhibit `X' for the purpose of identification. Petition is partly allowed in terms of those Consent Terms. However, it is made clear that no obligation either financially or otherwise is cast upon respondent nos.2 and 3 by these Consent Terms and this order of High Court.

¶19

The impugned judgment of School Tribunal dated 28.04.1994 delivered in appeal no. 17/1992 is modified only to that extent.

¶20

Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no order as to costs.

¶21

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE.

¶22

18.01.2011 gas/wp2555.95

N.E.S.High School and Another. v. Devendra Pitambar Patil and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.E.S.High School and Another. v. Devendra Pitambar Patil and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Raibhan Shinde Vs Sundarbai Raibhan Shinde and Anr.

Umashankar Baburao Samshette Vs Vimalbai Virbhadra Kaijkar and Ors.

Ramesh Sidram Bansode Vs Mahadeo Narayan Bansode and Anr.

Dhondiram Narayan Halawe and Others. Vs Pandurang Bhagwant Naik and Others.

Govind Bhaurao Hambarde Vs Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University and Ors.

Ashok Arjun Chormale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.