A. H. JOSHI, J. : - Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

2. This is a Petition by the Society who is aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Director of Education communicated by letter, dated 23rd April, 1991, that the Management was responsible to pay the salary and allowances of Smt. Vidya Devi Raut who is present respondent No.1, and consequential order issued by Education Officer, dated 23rd April, 1991, informing that salary and allowances towards period of unemployment of Smt. Vidya Devi Raut be paicl by the Management, and if not paid, the arrears be recovered from the Non -salary Grants payable to the School.

3. The brief background of the case, which needs to be adverted to, is narrated hereinafter.

4. Present respondent No.1 was appointed by the petitioner -Management as Assistant Teacher. Her services were terminated by notice, dated 2nd April, 1986, as the approval for appointment was for only one year. After six months m the termination, the Education Officer modified the approval and ordered it be for two years. When the modified approval was issued, the respondent No. 1 herein had already ceased to be an employee of the petitioner. Petitioner did not reinstate the respondent No.1.

5. Aggrieved by the notice of termination, respondent No.1 preferred an peal before the School Tribunal. The appeal was filed after expiry of period of limitation. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal on account of delay by Order, dated 20th January, 1988.

6. The respondent No.1, who was aggrieved by the judgment of the School Tribunal, preferred Writ Petition No. 548 of 1988, which was heard and decided y this Court (Coram : M. S. Ratnaparkhi and M. B. Ghodeswar, JJ.) by judgment and Order, dated 19th April, 1990. This Court passed the following Order : -

"9. The order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside. The notice of termination issued by the respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner is bad. Rule is made absolute in terms above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs."

[quoted from Para 9 at page 24 of the Petition].

7. It is pertinent to note that School Tribunal had not heard the appeal on merits, and was dismissed on the point of delay only. It seems that this Court,

however, thought it fit to set aside the order without explicitly stating as to whether :

(i) upon setting aside order, the delay was condoned and appeal was to be re -admitted, heard and decided according to law;

(ii) whether the notice or order of termination, which was subject matter of appeal before the School Tribunal, was set aside, and reinstatement was granted, and

(iii) if order of reinstatement was granted, whether it was with or without back -wages.

8. While the things are left as they exist, parties have proceeded on the common understanding that present respondent No.1 has been reinstated.

The respondents, however, construed the order to be of reinstatement as ell as of back wages.

9. Due to failure of Management to pay the back -wages, the respondent o. 1 is seen to have given a notice of hunger strike. Consequent thereto, the Deputy Director of Education (respondent No.3) held some meeting and discussion with Education Officer - respondent No. 2 and issued the communication, dated 23rd April, 1991, which is Annexure C to the Writ petition. Contents of this letter, when freely translated, read as follows : -

"The matter has been discussed in detail with Education Officer (Secondary) about salary payable to Sau. Vidyadevi Raut on 23rd April, 1991. Education Officer has been instructed to release salary and allowances by fixing the liability towards illegal termination on the Management. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, has accordingly issued appropriate orders."

10. In compliance with the decision referred in above quoted let