ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals arise out of the final Judgment and order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 2135 of 2000. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher against a vacant post in Respondent No. 3 - school on 01.07.1986. That on 26.06.1995, the appellant was disallowed to resume duties in the school. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 78/1995 and got a stay order in his favour. Thereafter, there was a compromise between the appellant and the school management on the promise that the appellant would be appointed on probation for two years and consequently, the appellant withdrew the said appeal. 4. On 02.08.1995, the school management appointed the appellant as an Assistant Teacher on probation for a period of two years in a substantive vacant post. The appellant was subsequently transferred from Vasantrao Naik High School to Swami Pendse Guruji Vidyalaya, Dhanki. The appellant cleared the probation period on 02.08.1997. 5. The services of the appellant were terminated by Respondent No. 3 on 10.11.1997 mentioning that the approval given by the Education Officer to the appointment of the appellant has been cancelled by him. It is the case of the appellant that he was neither given any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him and his juniors, who were similarly situated, continued in their services. 6. The appellant preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 190/2000 before the School Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2000. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition, being W.P.No. 2135/2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon a decision of the High Court in Anna Manikrao Vs. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition, being W.P.No. 2135/2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon a decision of the High Court in Anna Manikrao Vs. School Tribunal , reported in , (1997) 3 MhLJ 697 , wherein the duty was cast upon the Tribunal to frame the following three preliminary issues :- i) Whether the school was a recognized school as defined under the M.E.P.S. Act; ii) Whether the appointment of the concerned teacher was made as per Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules thereunder; iii) Whether such an appointment has been approved by the Education Officer in pursuance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. In Paragraph 5 of the above referred Judgment, it was held thus :- "In case the findings to any of the preliminary issues are in the negative, the appeal must fail then and there itself, so far as the relief of reinstatement/continuation in service is concerned." 8. Thus, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant on the third preliminary issue i.e. the approval was not granted to the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Division Bench of the High Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 of 2005, which has been dismissed by the High Court by way of the impugned Judgment. 10. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the decision in the case of Anna Manikrao (supra) was overruled by a larger bench of the High Court in St. Ulai High Court & Anr. Vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh & Anr., reported in , (2007) 1 MhLJ 597 . In Paragraph 13(iii), the High Court observed as under :- "Neither the MEPS Act, 1977, nor the Rules framed thereunder mandate the grant of approval by the Education Officer as a condition precedent to a valid order of appointment. The requirement of approval which relates to the disbursal of grant in aid is a matter between the management and the State and want of approval will not invalidate an order of appointment." 11. The requirement of approval which relates to the disbursal of grant in aid is a matter between the management and the State and want of approval will not invalidate an order of appointment." 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the materials on record, we find that as the appeal preferred by the appellant was pending, he ought to have been granted the relief in terms of the above decision of the Full Bench of the High Court. However, as he was removed and position of law has been settled subsequently by the aforesaid decision, in order to do complete justice between the parties, we direct that though the appellant shall be reinstated, however, he shall not be entitled to any backwages for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The appellant shall be treated as "on service" for the purpose of his retiral and other dues to be payable at the time of his superannuation. 12. In view of the above, the termination order dated 10.11.1997 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court are hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed. Let this order be complied with within two months from today.