WP/9764/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9764 OF 2010 Tanaji M. Gharge ... Petitioner V/s. Bhodani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Rahul Kadam for Petitioner Ms.Varsha Palav for Resp. No.1 Mr.S.D. Rairkar, AGP, for Respondent No.3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed by the School Tribunal on 14.10.2010. By this order, the School Tribunal has refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal u/s 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. The delay is of 285 days. According to the Petitioner, his services were illegally terminated by the respondent institution on 14.6.2009. He was unable to approach the Tribunal immediately thereafter since his mother was ill. She expired on 10.8.2009. Thereafter, he claims that his wife was ill and also his son. According to him, his wife was hospitalised. Thereafter he approached the Education Officer on 24.12.2009 for redressal of his grievance. He was informed by the Education Officer that his remedy was to approach the School Tribunal by preferring an appeal under the MEPS Act. Accordingly, the petitioner WP/9764/2010 : 2 : issued a notice to the respondent institution and thereafter filed the appeal. As no application for condoning the delay had been filed initially, the petitioner was directed by the Tribunal to file the same. He therefore filed that application. 2. The School Tribunal has refused to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the delay. It has been held that assuming all the documents relating to the petitioner’s mother’s illness and the hospitalisation of his wife and illness of his son are accepted, the petitioner had no reason not to prefer the appeal between 31.8.2009 to October 2009. It has also been observed that the petitioner approached the Director of Education in the month of March 2010 although the Director did not have any authority to remedy the grievance of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal has dismissed the application. The Tribunal has also observed that the petitioner had resigned from service in June 2009 itself and, therefore, ought to have approached the Tribunal within the period of limitation. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasoning of the Tribunal is erroneous. He urges that the petitioner has shown good cause for not approaching the Tribunal within the time stipulated u/s 9 of the MEPS Act and, therefore the delay ought to be condoned. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error by refusing to condone the delay. She points out that the Tribunal has rejected the application for cogent reasons which need not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. WP/9764/2010 : 3 : 5. I have perused the reasons for rejecting the application. In my opinion, in his application for condoning the delay the Petitioner had made out sufficient cause for the delay to be condoned. His mother had expired after a prolonged illness on 10.8.2009. His wife was hospitallised and his son was also unwell. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay. Apart from this, the petitioner had pursued a wrong remedy which also ought to have been taken into account by the Tribunal before rejecting the application. It is well settled that Courts should not interpret the term `sufficient cause’ in a strait jacket manner. The petitioner in the present case had no reason to delay the matter except for the causes mentioned in his application. He has not gained any advantage for having delayed his approach to the Tribunal. 6. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed. Delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Rule made absolute. 7. The appeal shall be registered and numbered accordingly.