1 WP 2631.12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2631 OF 2012 1. Gurukul Shikshan Sanstha, Bhatkuli, Tahsil-Bhatkuli, District-Amravati, through its Secretary. 2. Gurukul Shikshan Sanstha, Bhatkuli, Tahsil-Bhatkuli, District-Amravati, through its President. 3. The Head Master, Dnyaneshwar Pawar Kanishtha Mahavidyalaya, Bhatkuli, Tahsil-Bhatkuli, District-Amravati. .. Petitioners .. Versus .. 1. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2. Yogesh Shrikrushna Umak, Aged about 35 years, Occupation-Service, R/o. Bhatkuli, Tahsil-Bhatkuli, District-Amravati. 3. Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Region, Amravati. 4. Govindsing Rupsing Thakur, R/o. Bhatkuli, Tahsil-Bhatkuli, District-Amravati. .. Respondents 2026:BHC-NAG:11647 2 WP 2631.12 Shri Anup Gilda, Advocate h/f Shri J.T. Gilda, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri S.C. Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3/State. Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ……………… CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 31.08.2026. JUDGMENT 1. By way of present petition, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No.37/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the termination order of the respondent no.2-employee dated 04.05.2010, terminating his services with effect from 08.05.2010 and directed to reinstate on his former post by granting the continuity of service since 30.11.2008. The learned Tribunal further directed the petitioner- management to pay 25% back-wages of the salary from 08.05.2010, till the date of order to the respondent no.2- employee. 2. It is the case of the petitioners-management that due to unsatisfactory work of the respondent no.2-employee, show 3 WP 2631.12 cause notice was issued to him on 08.04.2010. The respondent no.2-employee did not tender satisfactory explanation to the show cause notice and thereby his services were terminated by termination notice dated 04.05.2010 with effect from 08.05.2020. 3. The respondent no.2-employee challenged the said termination before the School Tribunal by filing the statutory appeal bearing Appeal No.37/2010. The learned School Tribunal, after considering the submission of both the parties and by recording the findings that the impugned order is a punitive in nature and, therefore, without conducting enquiry, such drastic action is contrary to the provisions of law, quashed and set aside the termination order and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.2-employee. 4. The petitioners-management against the judgment of School Tribunal has preferred the present writ petition. This court on 26.07.2013 has granted Rule in the matter, but at the same time, refused to grant stay to the reinstatement of the respondent no.2-employee and only in respect of payment of 4 WP 2631.12 back-wages, the stay was granted, subject to condition that the petitioner-management shall reinstate the respondent no2- employee within a specified period. In pursuance of the order of this court dated 26.07.2013, the respondent no.2-employee has been reinstated and continued in service. 5. Today, when this matter is listed for final hearing, the counsel for the respondent no.2-employee, on instructions, stated that the respondent no.2-employee is not insisting for the prayer of back-wages which were directed to be paid by the petitioner-management to the respondent no.2-employee. His only submission is that his services ought to have been considered from the date of his appointment and continuity of service from the date of appointment shall be granted to him. 6. The petitioner-management do not dispute this factual aspect. According to the petitioner-management, as his termination is set aside, he is otherwise entitled for continuity of service from the of appointment. Petitioner-management is ready to grant him continuity of service by taking proper steps in the matter. 5 WP 2631.12 7. In the present matter, the counsel for the respondent no.2-employee has pointed out the order of approval dated 02.04.2012, whereby the Deputy Director of Education has granted approval in respect of one Nilesh Gadbail and Ravindra Rathod from the date of their appointment. However, in respect of respondent-employee, it is stated that as the respondent no.2 was not working at the relevant time, his case for approval was not considered by the Deputy Director of Education. 8. In the present matter, admittedly the respondent no.2- employee was appointed on 30.11.2008 as a Junior College Teacher in the petitioner no.3-college. It is undisputed fact that this termination has been set aside by the School Tribunal. Therefore, from the date of appointment, he is entitled for all service benefits. 9. In view of this, the Deputy Director of Education is required to consider the case of the respondent no.2-employee on the same footings by granting approval to the appointment of respondent as like of similarly situated employees namely, Shri Nilesh Gadbail and Ravindra Rathod. Therefore, considering this fact, petitioner-management should forward 6 WP 2631.12 proposal to the office of Deputy Director of Education. On receipt of such proposal, in view of statement of respondent no.2, he is not claiming backwages from respondents, Deputy Director of Education shall consider his entitlement for continuity of services from the date of initial appointment without any backwages. In view of above, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The directions of the School Tribunal, Amravati in the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2011 in respect of payment of back-wages of 25% of the salary from 08.05.2010, till the date of order of the School Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) It is made clear that the respondent no.2- employee’s services shall be considered as a continuity of service with effect from 30.11.2008 and accordingly, the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Region, Amravati shall consider the issue of approval in the matter. (iv) The petitioner no.3 is directed to forward the fresh proposal of the respondent no.2-employee from the date of his appointment to the Deputy Director of Education within a period of thirty days from the date of this order. 7 WP 2631.12 (v) The Deputy Director of Education shall decide the said proposal within a period of forty-five days, after the receipt of such proposal. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 03/09/2026 18:57:50