Bombay High Court
Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Shikshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 1 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:17198
{1}
WP 8014.24 R.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8014 of 2024
SHRI CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL
AND OTHERS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.
...
Dr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, AGP for the State.
CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE :- 1st AUGUST, 2024.
ORDER :
-
1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 14.9.2023 passed by
the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Miscellaneous
Application No. 25 of 2023, thereby condoning the delay of 1176 days
caused in filing the appeal filed by respondent No.3.
2. Dr. R.J. Godbole, learned advocate for petitioner submits
that the application for condonation of delay caused in filing appeal by
respondent employee was placed for hearing before School Tribunal on
11.9.2023 and it was adjourned to 9.10.2023. However, later-on, the
Roznama was changed and matter was preponed to 14.9.2023 for order
below Exhibit 6 and on that day, the application is allowed. He would
further submit that inordinate delay of 1176 days has been condoned
although the application is bereft of sufficient cause. He would further
{2}
WP 8014.24 R.odt
submit that in cases of inordinate delay at least the claim of back wages
could have been foreclosed for that period. In that view of the matter, he
urges to quash and set aside impugned order.
3. I have considered submissions advanced and also perused
the record tendered into service. It appears from the Roznama that the
petitioner (management) was served with the copy of the Misc.
Application seeking condonation of delay. That service report was
submitted on 22.6.2023. Since petitioners (original respondent Nos. 1
and 2) were absent, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, the
application was taken up for arguments on 11.9.2023. Roznama records
that case is adjourned for argument and next date was given as
9.10.1023. However, on same day i.e. on 11.9.2023, again it was
preponed and the matter appears to have been posted on 14.9.2023 for
judgment.
4. Apparently, petitioners were proceeded ex-parte. Assuming
that on 11.9.2023, the matter was for arguments and it was adjourned to
9.10.2023, the correction of Roznama is carried out on same day and
after hearing the arguments, the matter was posted for judgment on pre-
poned date i.e. 14.9.2023. Therefore, even assuming that there is some
irregularity in recording the Roznama, no prejudice is caused to the
petitioners,
5. The next contention raised on behalf of petitioner is that
sufficient cause is not made-out to condone huge delay. Apparently, the
oral termination dated 30.12.2019 was subjected to challenge in appeal.
The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 29.1.2020. However, it
{3}
WP 8014.24 R.odt
can be observed that during 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 the period of 715
days has been exempted from counting limitation owing to COVID-19
pandemic. The learned Tribunal noted that actual delay counts to 461
days and after satisfying with reasons stated in application, delay has
been condoned.
6. It is trite that liberal approach needs to be adopted in the
matter of condonation of delay. Unless it is found that a party has derived
disadvantage by making delay in lodging proceeding, it shall not be non-
suited on technical reason. In the present case, respondent no.3 has filed
appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, alleging otherwise termination.
In case of rejection of application, the respondent No.3 would be
remediless. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if appeal is
heard on merit. However, there is merit in contention of Mr. Godbole
that petitioner shall not be benefited in terms of back wages at least for
period of delay. Therefore, it is made clear that in case the respondent
No.3 succeeds in appeal, the Tribunal shall keep in mind the period of
delay in filing appeal, while considering claim of respondent No.3 for
grant of back wages and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. Therefore, no case is made out to cause interference in
impugned order of Tribunal under Section 227 of the Constitution of
India, hence writ petition stands dismissed with observations made
above.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR]
JUDGE
grt/-
