IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6462 OF 2008 Nana D. Bodade ...Petitioner Vs. Dnyanraj Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Anr. .. Respondents --- Shri G.S. Hegde & Associates for Petitioner Anita A. Agarwal for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 16TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable by consent of parties forthwith. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal dismissing his application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was delay of 103 days in filing the appeal. His application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 5. Shri Hegde, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had patently erred in holding that there was a delay caused in filing the appeal. He submitted that by way of abundant caution, he filed an application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the Petitioner was working as a Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.1 School and his services were terminated by a letter dated 31.10.2007 w.e.f. 13.2.2008. Shri Hegde submitted that the appeal was filed within 30 days from the date on which the termination took effect. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the date on which the letter dated 31st October, 2007 was served, was the starting point from which the period of limitation begun running against the Petitioner. 6. Ms. Agarwal, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents has invited my attention to the order passed by the Tribunal and supported the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 7. In my view the Tribunal has committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. The letter of termination though it is dated 31.10.2007, it specifically states that it would take effect from 13.2.2008 from which date the services of the Petitioner would stand terminated. That being the position, the period of limitation would start from the date on which his services stood terminated and not from the date on which he was informed that his services would stand terminated on future date. 8. The Petitioner, accordingly, had filed the appeal on 13.3.2008 within 30 days from 13.2.2008. Therefore, in my view, there was no delay in filing the appeal. Even otherwise, sufficient cause had been shown by the Petitioner for filing the appeal on 13.3.2008 and the Tribunal ought to have heard the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal of the Petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and decide the same expeditiously. 9. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Both the parties may appear before the Tribunal on 4th of May, 2009. V.M. KANADE J.