IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 933 WRIT PETITION NO. 7681 OF 2023 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10326 OF 2024 KHANDESH EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER VERSUS MAHAVEER PRAVIN JAIN AND ANOTHER AND WRIT PETITION NO. 7679 OF 2023 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10329 OF 2024 KHANDESH EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER VERSUS RAVINDRA PRABHULAL MUNDANKAR AND ANOTHER Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Manish Navandar a/w Mr. Amit Gadekar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent/State Mr. B. R. Warmaa, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. By consent of both sides, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission and decided by common judgment, since both petitions involve similar questions of fact and law. 2. These petitions take exception to the order dated 13/06/2023 passed in Appeal Nos. NMU-2 of 2022 and 1 of 2022 preferred by the respondent No.1, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the said appeals by 933.wp7679.23.odt 1 of 7 2025:BHC-AUG:9489 passing following order; “(i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned termination order, dated 6.12.2021 made effective from 8.12.2021 passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is set aside. (iii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to reinstatement appellant with continuity of service and back wages as directed by Hon’ble High Court vide interim order, dated 24.2.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.1738 of 2018 from their own pocket. (iv) The order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages will be subject to final decision of pending Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2018. (v) Parties to bear their own costs.” 3. The facts which led to the filing of these petitions can be narrated in brief as under: (i) The respondents employees were employed by the petitioner- divisional institution as ‘Clerk’ and ‘Peon’ some time around 2003. On 01/06/2011 their services were claimed to have been terminated orally and hence, Appeal bearing No. 2/2011 came to be preferred before the University Appellate Tribunal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act (for short ‘the Act’). In the said appeal compromise took place between the parties. The appeal came to be allowed in terms of the compromise by order dated 20/04/2017. The order passed by the University and College Tribunal and the terms of the settlement between the parties are reproduced herein below; “ORDER Appellant is present. Counsels for both sides are present. Appellant and respondents have entered into compromise. The terms of compromise read over and 933.wp7679.23.odt 2 of 7 explained. Appellant admits that the said terms are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and admits the signature of compromise purshis. Respondents no.1 and 2 whose signatures are attested and identified by Shri. Vinod Patil Advocate. The appellant is identified by Smt. Ujjwal Agrawal Advocate. So, the compromise purshis is verified, read and recorded. The compromise pursis shall be the part and parcel of appeal bearing No. NMU- 02/2011.” ^^rMtksM iqjlhl ojhy izdj.kkr vihykFkhZ o lkeusokyk dz- 1 o 2 ;kaP;ke/;s [kkyhyizek.ks rMtksM vkgs- [kkyh uewn dsysY;k vVhps ikyu nksUgh i{kkaoj ca/kudkjd vlqu es- U;k;ky;kus ojhy izdj.k rMtksMhP;k vVhuqlkj fudkyh dk<kos gh fouarh- 1½ O;oLFkkiukus ¼lkeusokyk dz-1 o 2½ vihykFkhZpk cMrQhZpk rksaMh fnysyk vkns’k vkt jksth jn~n dsykj vkgs- 2½ vihykFkhZP;k O;oLFkkiukus izFke use.kwdh iklqu lsok lkrR; ns.;kps ekU; dsys vkgs o R;kph iqu%LFkkiukgh eatqj fjdkE;k iq.kZosG tkxsoj dsyh vkgs- 3½ O;oLFkkukus vihykFkhZps izFke use.kqdh iklqu lsok lkrR; ns.;kps ekU; dsys- 4½ vihykFkhZus fnukad 1@8@2010 iklwu rs gh rMtksM i=dkoj djs i;ZarP;k fnukdkadi;ZarP;k loZ ixkjkph vkfFkZd ekx.kh lksMwu fnyh vkgs- vihykFkhZ lnjP;k dkGkrhy osru Hkfo”;kr d/khgh ekx.kh dj.kkjukgh- 5½ vihykFkhZus fnukad 10@1@2017 iklqu iqoZor inLFkkiuk d:u dkekoj :t d:u ?ks.;kps lkeusokyk dz- 1 o 2 ;kauh ekU; dsys vkgs- 6½ vihykFkhZ dkekoj :tw >kY;kiklqu ‘kklukdMqu fu;fer osruJs.kh feG.;kl ik= jkfgy vls O;oLFkkiukus ekU; dsys vkgs- ijarq ‘kklukdMqu fu;fer osruJs.kh u feGkY;kl r;kl O;oLFkkiu tckcnkj jkg.kkj ukgh- 7½ lsok ts”Brk ;k dkj.kklkBh fnukad 9@8@2010 gk ekud fnukad Bjfoyk vkgs 8½ O;oLFkkiukus gh rMtksM >kY;kiklqu 30 fnolkps vkr es- lglapkyd] mPp f’k{k.k] tGxkao ;kaP;kdMs vihykFkhZpk ekU;rk izLrko lknj djrhy- dks.kR;kgh dkj.kkLro vFkok lcchoj izLrko lknj dj.;kl foyac dj.kkj ukgh- djhrk vihykFkhZ u lkeusokyk dz- 1 o 2 rQsZ gh rMtksM 933.wp7679.23.odt 3 of 7 iqjlhl** (ii) Pursuant to the said compromise, the petitioner Management is said to have forwarded the proposal for the approval of the employment of the respondents. Since the approval is negatived by the Competent Authority, Writ Petition bearing No. 1738 of 2018 came to be preferred. The said petition is pending before Division Bench of this Court. (iii) In the meantime petitioner Management issued order dated 01/11/2021 terminating the services of the respondents from 30/11/2021. However, subsequently the said order was withdrawn. A fresh order came to be issued on 06/12/2021 terminating their services w.e.f. 08/12/2021. Even before this order could be passed, certain civil applications were moved for the purpose of seeking review, a review of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1738/2018. (iv) Since the services of the respondents were terminated by order dated 06/12/2021, appeal came to be preferred under Section 81 of the Act in Appeal No. 02/2022. After hearing both sides and considering the material evidence on record the learned Presiding Officer of the University and College Tribunal passed impugned order, whereby the appeal came to be allowed with the order as indicated herein above. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made elaborate 933.wp7679.23.odt 4 of 7 submissions on the issues involved herein. At the outset it is his contention that the Tribunal has committed error in relying upon the orders passed by this Court at interim stage rather than deciding the issue on merit of the case. He has further grievance to make in respect of the impugned order to the effect that the Tribunal has considered the compromise terms only in part which were favourable to the respondents and in fact the the Court ought to have taken into account the compromise as a whole. This according to him has resulted into recording of the erroneous finding which needs interference at the hands of this Court. He further drew attention of the Court to the various orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1738/2018 to contend that those orders were passed at interim stage and could not have been made on the basis or passing the impugned order by the Tribunal. In any case it is his grievance that the Tribunal has not applied its mind and has passed order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages subject to the final decision of pending Writ Petition No. 1738/2018. This according to him is wholly impermissible in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders. 6. At the outset it needs to be recorded that the issue before the Tribunal was with regard to the legality of the termination of the 933.wp7679.23.odt 5 of 7 respondents effected by letter dated 06/12/2021. There is no dispute about the fact that before the Tribunal, the previous proceedings more particularly the terms of compromise filed in Appeal No. 02/2011 were placed on record. Though now it is sought to be contended by the petitioner Management that the services of the respondents were terminated for the reason that they were not regularly employed against the permanent vacant post. This however, runs contrary to the terms of compromise where in clause No.2 clearly indicates that respondents were employed on approved vacant full time post. This aspect has been rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing impugned order. The question arises as to whether a fault can be found in the impugned order that the learned Tribunal has not recorded all the terms of compromise in the order impugned. Though the order impugned indicates that the terms of compromise up to clause No.3 were not reproduced, however for all practical purposes entire compromise terms are taken into consideration by the Tribunal which is reflected from the observations made from paragraph 60 onwards of the said judgment. Those observations clearly indicate that the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that issue with regard to the payment of back wages and salary etc. would be dependent upon the terms of compromise so also outcome of the Writ Petition No. 1738/2018. When it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the petition is pending before the High Court and the 933.wp7679.23.odt 6 of 7 issue which has a direct bearing on the back wages and salary payable to the respondents in subjudice, it was not open for the Tribunal to ignore the said fact and to pass any independent order and any order so passed would always be subject to outcome of petitions. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal making the payment of back wages, salary etc. subject to outcome of the Writ Petition No. 1738/2018 is perfectly justified. Had it been done otherwise it was said to have been a error committed by the Tribunal. 7. In so far as the legality of termination is concerned, once the compromise terms have become final wherein the Management has candidly accepted the facts about the employment of the respondents of sanctioned vacant full time post, it was not open for the Management to take the stand that therein employment is not against the sanction post as indicated in the order of termination dated 06/12/2021. 8. Having regard to the facts of the case, observations made by Tribunal with regard to the malafide intention on the part of the Management to terminate the services cannot be faulted with. As a result of which, this Courts finds no merit in the petitions, petitions stand dismissed. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 933.wp7679.23.odt 7 of 7