THE HEAD MISTRESS MOUNT CARMEL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, NAGPUR AND ANOTHER v. MRS. JACQUELINE W/O DAVID FRANCIS, AND 2 OTHERS
WP/5793/2013 · 2026-08-25
body2013
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2013 DAILYLAW 2812 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2013 DAILYLAW 2812 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
17 wp 5793-2013.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5793 OF 2013 The Head Mistress Mount Carmel Girls High School, Nagpur And Another VERSUS Mrs. Jacqueline W/o David Francis, And 2 Others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri S.C. Joshi, AGP for respondent No.2/State CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 25.08.2026
1. In the present matter, learned Counsel for petitioner Shri Suresh Dhole filed his power in the matter but when this matter was listed on 18.08.2026, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner, this matter is adjourned for today. 2. Today, again, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the matter. 3. The respondent-employee has pointed out by the impugned judgment, the School Tribunal has granted reinstatement without back wages. The said judgment is under challenge in the present petition. It is pointed out that respondent No.1 employee has been reinstated on 02.07.2014 and receiving the regular salary since 2014. 17 wp 5793-2013.odt 2
4.
So also, by virtue of order dated 10.10.2014 passed by this Court in the present petition, the effect of continuity of service was also granted to respondent No.1 employee. Hence, according to the respondent-employee, nothing survived in the present petition. 5. In the present petition, considering the facts which are stated by the respondent-employee, it is clear that due to these events, the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the present petition. 6. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. (PRAVIN S. PATIL J.) R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 18:56:08