1. This matter has painful factual aspects where the party in person who was working as a Teacher in the respondent institution had to approach the Primary Education Tribunal by way of filing Application No.258 of 1994 which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 21.12.1995. Ultimately, the petitioner - party in person had to approach the Tribunal again by way of filing an application for execution of the said judgment and award which came to be listed as Execution Petition No.4 of 2000 and claimed interest as well as the amount towards damages. Ultimately, the last order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Education Tribunal in the said application is challenged by the petitioner before this Court.
2. On notice being served, as ordered by this Court vide order dated 15.7.2011, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate appears for respondent No.1, Mr. N.A. Pandya, learned advocates appears for respondent No.3 and Ms. Hansa Punani, learned AGP appears for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3. Without going into merits of the application, Mr. Premal Joshi, on instructions from respondent No.1, has stated at the bar that in order to solve the longstanding controversy between the petitioner - party in person and respondent No.1 in particular, respondent No.1 shall pay further amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) by a Demand Draft in the name of party in person - Yogeshbhai Ambalalbhai Patel, latest by 19.1.2012 and the same shall be delivered latest by 19.1.2012. The party in person has been given an understanding of the order which is passed. Learned advocates for respondent Nos.1 and 3 have rightly raised objection to certain averments made in the petition which is in Gujarati language and more particularly, the averments made in Para 20 of the application (at Page 5 of the application). The petitioner has sincerely expressed his desire to delete the same. The same stands deleted.
4. In case if respondent No.1 fails to make the payment as per the statement made by Mr. Premal Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 by 19.1.2012, it would be open for the petitioner to revive this petition.
5. With these observations, without going into the merits of the matter, the petition is disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top