JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. The management and school are before this Court as petitioners challenging order passed by the respondent No. 1-Education Officer, whereby the said respondent has directed the petitioners to pay salary to the respondent No. 2 for the entire period of almost one academic year, during which the respondent No. 2 did not attend duties in petitioner No. 1-School. The respondent No. 1 has come to the conclusion that the petitioners ought to have treated his absence as being on medical leave and since she had leave to her credit, she was entitled to salary for the said period.

4. The respondent No.2 was working as an Assistant Teacher with the petitioner No.1-School, which is an unaided minority institution. The respondent No.2 was in employment of the petitioners since the year 1994. The material placed on record shows that the respondent No.2 had remained absent without prior permission between 03/02/2004 and 07/02/2004 and in this context, she had submitted an undertaking on 09/08/2004 that henceforth she would obtain permission for leave as per Rules. Thereafter, again the respondent No. 2 remained absent from 25/07/2005 to 03/08/2005, on medical ground, without any supporting documents and on this occasion also, the petitioners warned respondent No. 2 not to remain absent without prior permission.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that despite such warnings being given and undertakings being submitted by the respondent No. 2, she remained absent for the entire academic session from 26/06/2012 to 24/04/2013, without prior permission and in violation of the relevant Rules. The petitioners sent communication dated 27/05/2013, directing the respondent No. 2 that she must join duty from 26/06/2013 i.e. the first day of academic year 2013-2014. She was also informed that the head of the institution was contemplating action to be taken against her for such unauthorized leave for the entire academic year 2012-2013 and also for an issue relating to use of derogatory language and making false allegations against the head of the institution. When the petitioner-management resolved to issue charge-sheet to the respondent No. 2 for unauthorized absence, on 06/07/2013, the respondent No. 2 submitted her resignation. On 06/08/2013, the petitioners issued statement of allegations to the respondent No. 2. It is in this backdrop that the respondent No. 2 submitted letters to the petitioners claiming not only release of salary for the past academic year, but also for grant of annual increment. On 27/08/2013, the respondent No. 2 replied to the statement of allegations.

6. The respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 6841 of 2013 before this Court seeking direction against the petitioners for release of her salary for the leave period and also for grant of benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission. This writ petition was opposed by the petitioners and on 06/07/2017 the writ petition was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 had also filed a complaint before the respondent No. 1-Education Officer, regarding her claim of non-payment of annual increments and gratuity. On 18/05/2016, the petitioners released gratuity of respondent No. 2, which she accepted under protest. On 03/08/2016, the respondent No. 1 passed an order holding that he did not have power to decide the grievance raised by the respondent No. 2, because the school was an unaided school. But, thereafter, the respondent No. 1 reviewed his own order on 29/10/2016 and directed the petitioners to decide the claim of respondent No. 2 within 15 days. On 26/02/2017, the respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Education Officer for derecognizing the petitioner-School.

7. In this backdrop, the respondent No. 2 filed another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 1581 of 2017, praying for setting aside the st