1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3276/2009 ( Swatantra Sangram Sainik Durbal -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 13, 2010. Heard Shri Bisen, holding for Shri N.D. Khamborkar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri P.N. Shende, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The School Tribunal has by the impugned order dated 05.12.2008 condoned delay in filing appeal before it. The services of respondent are claimed to have been terminated some time in July, 2002 and the proceedings have been filed in October, 2006. Shri Bisen, learned counsel contends that, the delay has not been explained properly and is huge. He points out that, respondent received amount of Rs. 91,000/- in April, 2006 and therefore her contention that in September, 2006 she had no money to file the appeal, is incorrect. He further states that, name of Advocate at Wardha who demanded particular amount to file appeal, has not been disclosed and the alleged illness mentioned in 2 the medical certificates is not serious enough. According to him as Doctor has not been examined, medical certificates are not proved at all. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 states that, the School Tribunal has passed order in its discretion in the interest of justice. Shri Shende, learned counsel states that the respondent was in service for over three years and her grievance is of forcible resignation. He points out that the respondent had no reason not to approach the School Tribunal within time. He further argues that the entitlement of respondent to back wages for said period of delay can be looked into by the School Tribunal separately. Shri Bisen, learned counsel in reply states that, the alleged story of forcible resignation has not been looked into, while condoning the delay. It is apparent that the correctness of the story of resignation and all stands of rival parties in relation thereto and question of entitlement of respondent to claim back wages for said period, has to be gone into by the School Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal on merits. At the stage of condonation of delay, the School Tribunal has to find out whether there was any just and sufficient reason to condone the delay. Perusal of the impugned order shows that all relevant factors are looked into by the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal has not found any malafides on the part of the respondent. Fact of receipt of amount of Rs. 91,040/- in April, 2006 is in dispute between the parties. 3 In the circumstances, I do not find any case made out by the petitioners warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.