1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8354 OF 2009 Manisha Devidas Dhanrale, age: 34 years, Occ: Nil, R/o 10, Vanashri Housing Socieity, Forest Colony, Ring Road, Jalgoan. Petitioner Versus 1 The Chairman, Annapurnadevi Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Tahalner, At and Post Thalner, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule. 2 The Head Master, Shri J.A.Patel Kanya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thalner, At and Post Thalner, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule. 3 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. Respondents Mr.M.M.Bhokarikar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30 th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 2 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This is a very peculiar case wherein this Court is constrained to cause interference in the order dated 12.09.2009 refusing to condone delay of five years occurred in filing appeal, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik. 3 Petitioner herein is daughter-in-law of the Chairman of Respondent No.1-Institution. It appears that after solemnization of marriage with the son of Chairman of Respondent No.1 – Institution, she was taken in employment as Shikshan Sevak and she was continued for about three years in the school. However, there appeared disharmony in relations between the petitioner and son of Chairman of Respondent No.1 – Institution and as such she was required to leave the matrimonial home. It is the contention of the petitioner that her services were orally terminated by the Management and in spite of her efforts to persuade the Management to permit her to join the duties, she was not allowed to do so. It is the contention of the petitioner that because of several litigations at the instance of her father-in-law, who was Chairman of Respondent No.1-Institution, she was required to face, she was not in a position to prosecute the appeal and there 3 appears to be delay of about five years in filing the appeal. One of the reason stated is that some necessary documents were not in her possession and after tendering an application under Right to Information Act and on receipt of the documents in the year 2008, she approached the Tribunal by presenting an appeal in the year 2009. 4 Respondents resisted the application contending that there is inordinate delay occurred in presenting the appeal. Disharmony between the relations of son of Chairman of the Institution and petitioner has no nexus with the occurrence of delay in presenting the appeal. It is contended that petitioner herself left the services and did not turn up any time for to resume the duties. It is further stated that in place of petitioner, another employee has been appointed and his services have been approved by the Education Officer and in these circumstances, it is improper to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to prosecute the appeal. 5 The School Tribunal, after considering the contentions raised by respective parties, was pleased to reject the application. 6 I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal. The fact stated in respect of relationship between the petitioner and son of Chairman of Respondent No.1 – Institution has not been controverted. It is 4 also not controverted that the petitioner was taken in employment after solemnization of her marriage with son of Chairman of Respondent No.1 – Institution. A reasonable inference, that is required to be drawn is, as a result of disharmony in the matrimonial relations between husband and wife, the petitioner has lost her job. No doubt there is delay of about five years in approaching the School Tribunal. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would not claim back wages if her appeal is considered favourably by the School Tribunal. Oral undertaking given to this Court would be a matter of consideration by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, while passing appropriate orders, on consideration of merit of the appeal. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unjust to deny opportunity to the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal. 7 Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 & 2 has placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Mahendra Wasudeo Muley Vs. Shamkimata Shikshan Va Krida Prasarak Mandal & others, reported in 2009 (6) Bom.C.R. 435; and in the matter of Kamalbai w/o Narsaiyya Shrimal & another Vs. Ganpat s/o Vithalrao Gavare, reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 807, and it is contended that the case put up by the petitioner is not worthy to be considered and the delay is not liable to be condoned. 5 8 The facts giving rise to this case are peculiar and I have stated in earlier paragraph that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is constrained to cause interference in the matter. 9 For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. The order dated 12.09.2009, passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik, in Misc. Application No.23 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. The School Tribunal is directed to register the appeal and proceed to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and in accordance with law. 10 Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp835409