JUDGMENT A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.:- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. In Original Application No. 1045 of 1993, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, at the instance of the petitioner, who was the applicant therein, has quashed and set aside his termination order dated 18.6.1993, refused to grant back wages and ordered the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on production of medical fitness certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal having found the termination order dated 18.6.1993 made by respondent no.1/Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur, as well as the appellate authority being illegal, rightly quashed and set aside the same. According to him, the Tribunal was however not justified in making a further order vide clause (b) of operative order in para 43 of the judgment to incorporate a condition that the applicant shall produce a medical certificate from Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur and therefore that part of the order is wrong and illegal. He further argued that in the light of the letter dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure-6) and another letter dated 19.07.2010 the petitioner is ready to accept the proposal and is also ready not to press his challenge regarding refusal of back wages. The learned A.G.P. relied on Rule 15(2) of The Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and argued that the direction in the said clause (b) of operative part of the judgment in para 43 is in accordance with the said Rule and therefore no fault could be found out with the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have carefully examined the order impugned before us so also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, we find that Rule 15(2) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 has absolutely no application in the instant case and the same relates to the persons who are newly appointed and after completion of six months temporary service they are required to be re-engaged. In the instant case, the termination of services of the petitioner was under challenge on various grounds which found favour with the Tribunal and thus quashed the order of termination of the petitioner. In the instant case, the termination of services of the petitioner was under challenge on various grounds which found favour with the Tribunal and thus quashed the order of termination of the petitioner. We, therefore, find that clause (b) of the operative part of the order in para 43 of the judgment cannot be sustained. 5. Considering the contention raised by Mr. Deshpande about the subsequent development, namely 3.7.2010 and 19.07.2010 issued by the employer to find out a solution to the problem, we find that these letters being subsequent in time could not be placed before the Tribunal and since now there is a reasonable offer in the said letters and further offer by the petitioner to forgo the entire back wages, in our opinion, the matter is required to be sent back to the Tribunal exercising power of review and consider the issue in the light of the above discussion insofar as the said letters and arrangement for compliance of the order of the Tribunal quashing the termination order of the petitioner is concerned. In the result, we make the following order. 6. Writ petition is partly allowed. Clause (b) of operative part of the order in para 43 of the judgment is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, with a direction for exercise of power of review, which we issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal shall register the proceedings for review and is requested to decide the same in the light of the aforesaid subsequent letters dated 3.7.2010 and 19.07.2010. The proceedings for review be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of registration of review proceedings. The Tribunal shall hear all the parties concerned. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.11.2010. Petition partly allowed.