1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9445 OF 2009 Santosh R. Kadam ....Petitioner V/s. Suhas S. Kamble & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. Mr.N.V. Bandivadekar for Respondent No.1. Mr.T.S. Ingale for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.P.I. Khemani, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 12TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The impugned order warrants no interference. It however requires some modification. By the impugned order, the first Respondent’s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act has been allowed. The delay is stated to be of 525 days. It was however contended on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the management that in fact the delay is of a longer period. According to them, even as per some of the averments of Respondent No.1, his services were otherwise terminated in the year 1999 itself. This submission was based on an alleged statement of Respondent 2 No.1 in the appeal that the management did not allow him to sign the muster roll from June, 1999. Respondent No.1 however, contended that he had in fact been paid his salary upto 7.12.2002. According to Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the salary was not paid by the management but by the trust that manages the institution for the work not connected to that of the institution itself. 3. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion of the School Tribunal condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is necessary however to provide that this will be without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner and the other Respondents to raise all the contentions including as to whether Respondent No.1 has challenged the alleged termination prior to December, 2002 and as to whether thereafter Respondent No.1 was employed by the management or by the trust for its other activities. All other contentions are also kept open. It is further clarified that neither the impugned order nor this order will affect such contentions in any manner. 4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.