CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2008 › S.b.shikshan Sanstha Waddhamana v. Education Officer, Nagpur

S.b.shikshan Sanstha Waddhamana v. Education Officer, Nagpur .

Supreme Court of India · 30 April 2008

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
30 April 2008
Case no.
C.A. No. 3380 of 2008
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3380 OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.6646/2006]

SHUBHAM BAHUUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,
WADDHAMANA AND ANR.

...
APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

EDUCATION OFFICER, NAGPUR AND ORS.
...
RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Leave granted.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

(1) The respondent No.3 shall continue to work in the school in question till an appropriate order of transfer is passed posting him to any other school. Such an order may be passed keeping in view the existing vacancy and/or as and when such vacancy occurs.

(2) Respondent No.2, if not working in the school in question, shall be reinstated forthwith in terms of the order passed by the School Tribunal. He shall be paid the back-wages with effect from the date of order passed by the School Tribunal in his favour but he may not be paid any back-wages for the period 1993 to 2002.

We are passing this order keeping in view the undertaking given by him before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.355/2004.

The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.

..........................J
(S.B. SINHA)

..........................J (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA) NEW DELHI, APRIL 30, 2008.

Ask CaseMinister about S.b.shikshan Sanstha Waddhamana v. Education Officer, Nagpur .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp