17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2020 OF 2004 Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha And Ors. ....Petitioners V/s Nalawade Ramling Vinayak And Ors. ....Respondents *** Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar for Petitioners. Mr Dilip Bodake a/w. Ms. Shraddha Pawar for Respondent No 1. Mr. Asif I. Patal, Addl. G.P. a/w. Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4/State. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. This petition is filed by the Management challenging the order dated 02.09.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No.69 of 2002. By the said appeal, Respondent No.1 had challenged alleged ‘otherwise termination’ under letter/communication dated 05.04.2002 issued by Petitioner- Management. By the impugned order, the alleged ‘otherwise termination’ is set aside thereby directing the Petitioner-Management to pay back-wages to Respondent No.1 from 05.04.2002 till reinstated on 01.05.2003. 3. Certain undisputed facts are required to be noted. Respondent No.1 was working with the Petitioner-Institute in various schools for Husen 1 HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Date: 2026.09.07 20:01:23 +0530 17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc a long time. It is not disputed that Respondent No.1 is a handicapped person. In July 2000, Respondent No.1 was transferred from Petitioner No.2-School (at Loni Kalbhor) to Chhatrapati Shivaji High School, Bhor. This transfer order was challenged by Respondent No.1 by filing Writ Petition No.4270 of 2000 in which Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 23.08.2000, issued notice and granted ad-interim stay to the order of transfer. It is not disputed that this petition got dismissed for default on 20.07.2001. Apparently, after receiving the copy of this order, the Petitioner-Management issued a letter dated 05.04.2002 to Respondent No.1 asking him to join the school at transferred place (Bhor). Treating this communication dated 05.04.2002 as ‘otherwise termination’, Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.69 of 2002 in the School Tribunal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. During pendency of this appeal, on 31.03.2003 the aforesaid writ petition was restored. Thereafter within a month, on 30.04.2003, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by observing that there is no reason to interfere with the order of transfer; however, observing as under : “ By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged his transfer three years ago. We see no reason to interfere with the order then made. However, looking to the facts that three years have passed since then, we direct that the Petitioner should make a fresh representation to the Managing Committee requesting another available posting. If such representation is made the Respondent should decide it objectively as early as possible.” 4. It is not disputed that immediately thereafter on the next day Husen 2 17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc i.e. 01.05.2003, Respondent No. 1 joined the school at transferred place. Within the four corners of above facts, the learned Presiding Officer has considered the rival submissions and held that the communication dated 05.04.2002 amounted to ‘otherwise termination’. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the contention of the Petitioner-Management that ‘there was no otherwise termination’ needs to be accepted and the petition is required to be partly allowed for following reasons. 6. On 20.07.2001 the petition challenging the transfer was dismissed for default and it was restored only on 31.03.2003. The order restoring the petition does not restore any interim relief specifically. The petition was ultimately dismissed on 30.04.2003, observing about representation and its consideration. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has submitted that when any interlocutory order is passed before dismissal of the petition, it stands revived when the dismissal is set aside. He relied upon Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma, Geevarghese and others 2004 AIR (SC) 3992. The Hon’ble supreme Court has held that if the proceedings are restored, then unless the Court expressly or by implication excludes the operation of interlocutory orders, the interlocutory orders would stand revived. In the present case, perusal of the restoration order dated 31.03.2003 indicates that after hearing Advocate for Respondent No. 1, the restoration order was passed. But since the wordings of the order do not specifically indicate revival of the Husen 3 17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc interim relief, despite advocate for Respondent No. 1 appearing, it is seen that ‘by implication’ no such request was either recorded to be made or granted. Therefore, till 31.03.2003, the Petitioner- Management was not under any interim order after the petition was dismissed. Be that as it may. Let us assume in favour of the Respondent No. 1 in best possible way. 8. Considering that Respondent No. 1 has joined the services thereafter on the transferred place and also continued to work, it cannot be said that communication dated 05.04.2002 amounts to otherwise termination. To that extent, the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. 9. Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 had served with the Petitioner for a long time. Assuming that on the restoration of the petition, his interim relief also got restored on 31.03.2003, the only period that can be considered in favour of Respondent No. 1 is from 31.03.2003 till 30.04.2003 during which the petition was pending and according to Respondent No. 1, he was not permitted to work. Therefore, the order of back-wages will have to be suitably modified only to that extent. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons indicated above, the petition is partly allowed and Rule is made partly absolute and writ petition is disposed of by passing following order : (A) The impugned order dated 02.09.2003 is set aside. Appeal No. 69 of 2002 is dismissed. However, the Petitioner- Husen 4 17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc Management is directed to pay back-wages from 31.03.2003 till 30.04.2003, directly to Respondent No. 1, within a period of 4 weeks i.e. till 05.10.2026. (B) Considering that there was interim stay to the order of back-wages during pendency of the petition, and also considering the fact that this Court has concluded that there was no otherwise termination, Respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled to any interest. If the amount is not paid within 4 weeks as directed above, the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from 06.10.2026 till realization. 11. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Husen 5