NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR v. The Presiding Officer & Ors.

Mr. AM Sudame, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rode, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 3. Mr. SK Gajbhiye, counsel for respondent no. 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 18 th January, 2012. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, on

16.7.2011, allowing an application filed by the respondent no. 2 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The respondent no.2 had filed an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School ( Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, challenging the order of his termination dated 29.12.2008. According to the respondent no. 2, the order of termination was received by the respondent no. 2 on 18.11.2010. It was stated in the application for condonation of delay that the respondent no.2 was short of monetary funds for filing the appeal and his wife who was managing the affairs of the family sought legal advise and wp4924-11.odt /2/ Order took time to arrange the necessary documents. According to the respondent no.2, there was some delay in filing the appeal on 13th of January, 2011. The delay was not much since the respondent no. 2 had received the termination order on 18.11.2010.

The management denied the case of the respondent no.2 and also denied that the termination order was received by the respondent no. 2 on 18.11.2010. It was the case of the management that the termination order was received by the respondent no. 2 on 31.12.2008 and there was a huge delay in filing the appeal. Though the management relied on the signature of the respondent no. 2 on the termination order to show that the respondent no.2 had received the termination order on 31.12.2008, the tribunal by the impugned order dated 16.7.2011 allowed the application filed by the respondent no.2. It cannot be said that the tribunal was not justified in holding that the management had failed to prove that the termination order was served on the respondent no. 2 on 31.12.2008. The tribunal rightly held that in view of the provisions of Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, it was necessary for the management to serve the termination order on the respondent no.2 by registered post acknowledgment due.

The tribunal further held that there was nothing on record to show that the respondent no.2 was wp4924-11.odt /3/ Order present in the school on 29.12.2008 and the termination order was indeed served on the respondent no.2. The tribunal held that the management failed to produce necessary documents to show that the respondent no.2 was present in the school on 31.12.2008 and he could have received the terminatin order on that date. The tribunal further held that the respondent no.2 had satisfactorily explained the delay in filing he appeal as he was suffering from ill-health at the relevant time. Since the delay was satisfactorily explained by the respondent no.2, the application for condonation of delay was rightly allowed by the school tribunal. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as costs. The record and proceedings should be remitted to the school tribunal, at the earliest. JUDGE Hirekhan.