Bombay High Court
Avatar Meharbaba Shikshan ... vs Savita Dhanrajji Borkar on 25 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 27-WP 3153.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3153 OF 2021
( Avtar Meharbaba Shikshan Sanstha vs. Savita Dhanarajji Borkar & anr. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. D. Bhate, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Smita Sarode, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. T. H. Khan, AGP for respondent No.2.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 25/08/2021
When this writ petition is called out for
hearing, the contesting respondent No.1 has appeared
suo-motu through counsel. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners i.e. Management of the
School submits that after the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Tribunal, the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and that compromise
petition is being placed before this Court. The
compromise petition placed before this Court is
signed by the petitioners, their counsel, as well as the
respondent No.1. The petitioner No.1 i.e. President
of the Management is present in Court and so is the
respondent No.1. They have been identified by their
counsel.
KOLHE
2/3 27-WP 3153.2021
2. The said compromise petition is taken on
record and marked as 'X'. The learned counsel for
the parties inform this Court that in terms of the said
compromise, the respondent No.1 has given up her
claim for back-wages and the petitioner No.1
Management has withdrawn the departmental
enquiry, which had resulted in termination of service
of respondent No.1.
3. This is significant in the backdrop of the
fact that in the impugned judgment and order, the
Tribunal had directed de-novo enquiry to be
conducted from the stage at which the principles of
natural justice and the relevant rules were violated.
It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
respondent No.1 was reinstated as the Head Mistress
in the petitioner No.2 school within a period of 30
days from passing of the impugned judgment and
order of the Tribunal.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts,
particularly the terms of compromise stated in the
compromise petition placed before this Court, the
present writ petition can be disposed of at this stage
itself. The respondent No.2 being the Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad is not required to
be served in the backdrop of the above facts.
KOLHE
3/3 27-WP 3153.2021
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of in terms of the compromise dated 14/08/2021
placed before this Court. The impugned judgment
and order of the Tribunal stands modified in terms of
the said compromise.
JUDGE
KOLHE
