Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, petitioners challenge order dated 18-7-2007, rendered by learned Presiding Officer of University and College Tribunal in Appeal No.

BAMU-03/07, whereby oral termination of respondent No.1 was set aside and they were directed to reinstate him as peon and further to pay arrears of salary during relevant period.

3. The respondent - Dnyanoba Dhawate, was appointed as peon in College run by the petitioners. He asserted that though he was attending the duty yet, since October, 2005, he was not being allowed to sign the Muster Roll. He further asserted that the petitioners did not pay salary though requested for. He contended that he was assured payment of salary after receiving Government grants. He believed the assurance and continued to work with the petitioners. He was wrongly informed that he was absent from duty. He was called upon to join the duty and when he, in fact, went to join duty with a request to allow him to do so, then he was not allowed to sign the Muster Roll. He was orally directed not to sign the Muster Roll and not to attend the College. So, he issued a notice through his advocate on 29-8-2006 and informed the petitioners that he was ready to work as peon. He asserted that he was not allowed to report to the duty, sign the Muster Roll and do the work as Peon. He contended that his services were orally terminated w.eJ. 22-10-2006 without any reason. Consequently, he urged for setting aside the termination order.

4. The petitioners contended that the respondent was appointed on 1-62005 and had worked only for about one month and thereafter, remained absent from duty on various occasions. It was contended that the respondent remained absent without prior intimation since October, 2005 and hence, the notice dated 14-8-2006 was served on him, calling upon him to join the duty immediately. It was further contended by the management that the respondent was again served with a notice dated 26-10-2006 calling upon him to join duties and to explain reasons for the absence. He failed to do so. The Management asserted, therefore, that services of the respondent stood terminated in view of Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms And Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984. The Management sought dismissal of the Service Appeal preferred by the respondent, mainly on the ground that he is deserter within the meaning of said Rule (Rule 50).

5. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the affidavits tendered by the parties and came to the conclusion that the respondent - Dnyanoba was appointed as Peon w.eJ. 20th September, 2004 and joined the services w.eJ. 22-9-2004. The Tribunal further held that oral termination of the respondent's service is illegal. Consequently, the deemed termination was set aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate him as well to pay arrears of the salary w.e.f. November, 2005 along with costs of the appeal.

6. Mr. Latange, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the respondent was absent from duty and hence, was deserter. He would submit that the reinstatement of the respondent is not in accordance with the law in view of Rule 50. He would submit that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while granting relief for arrears of pay when the respondent himself had not claimed any such relief in the appeal. He would submit that the respondent is not entitled to receive arrears of pay for the period when he was not in service nor was on duty. Hence, he urged to set aside the impugned order. Mr. Ashtekar, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned judgment.

7. Rule 50 of the Standard Code provides as follows:

"50 Deserter. - The employee who absent from duty without permission for a period of more than thirty days, shall be deemed to be desert