Satpuda Shikshan Va Gramin Vikas ... vs Deepika Suresh Ingle (Deepika W/O ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1650 Bom

                                                1                              wp434.21.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 434/2021
Satpuda Shikshan Va Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Palsi (Vaidya), Dist. Bhandara,
   through its Secretary and anr. .vs. Deepak Suresh Ingle (Deepika w/o
                          Nilesh Thakre) and Ors.
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions             Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
                     Mr. A. Sambre, Advocate for petitioners.
                     Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1.
                     Mr. S. M. Ukey, A.G.P. for respondent no.3.

                     CORAM :        V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : JANUARY 25, 2021

Heard Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.1-caveator and Mr. Ukey, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3.

By this petition, petitioners are challenging judgment and order passed by learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. A-2/2017 dated 27.11.2020 by which learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and directed the petitioners that respondent no.1 should be reinstated in the post of Assistant Professor with continuity of service and full back-wages.

During the course of hearing, Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for petitioners, makes a statement on instructions from the petitioners, that there is no difficulty for reinstatement of the petitioner in service and she will be reinstated in service.

The statement is accepted.

2 wp434.21.odt

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the original memo of appeal and the memo of appeal which was amended after a period of two years, there were no averments that respondent no.1-employee was not gainfully employed. However, after a period of three years, in the affidavit, it is stated that she is not gainfully employed anywhere. On this, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.1, submits that though the affidavit was filed after a period of three years and it was stated that she was not gainfully employed, that statement was never challenged by petitioners. Hence, RULE.

Statement of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.1 will be reinstated in service is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to agitate the question of reinstatement at the time of final hearing.

The petitioners are directed to deposit 25% of the amount of back-wages in this Court, within a period of 12 weeks from today.

JUDGE

kahale