1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O. NO.55 OF 2010. IN MCAST NO. OF 2009. IN L.P.A. NO.113 OF 2005(D). IN WRIT PETITION NO.4348 OF 2002. YAVATMAL ISLAMIA ANGLO URDU EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS VS SMT. NASEEM BANO SYED ASGAR AND OTHERS. ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2010. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1 year and 32 days caused in filing of Misc. Civil Application for review. 2. This Court considers that it would amount to vexing the respondents if a notice is issued on the application for condonation of delay without seeing the merits of the case. 2 3. In this background, learned Advocate for the appellant was called upon to address on merit of the case. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P. B. Patil for the applicant. Perused the record annexed to the appeal. 5. Brief background of the case is that the School Tribunal granted reinstatement with full back-wages by judgment and order dated 29-10-2010 in appeal No.86 of 1997. 6. In the writ petition No.4348 of 2002 challenging the said order, learned Single Judge passed the order on 10-3-2003 giving direction to reinstate the respondent and to pay him arrears of salary and allowances. It appears that this order dated 10-3-2003 was challenged in LPA, but no interim stay was granted in LPA till 11-11-2004. The employee even filed contempt petition which was in the process of hearing. 7. Civil Application No.6027 of 2004 in Writ Petition No.4348 of 2002, which was filed by respondent, came up before the Learned Single Judge on 11-11-2004. Learned Single Judge noticed that neither the order of reinstatement was complied nor was the direction to 3 deposit the amount of back-wages was complied through contempt petition was filed. In the said background of disobedience of order, learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the writ petitioner to deposit arrears of wages till 10-3-2003 within 8 weeks failing which the writ petition was to be dismissed automatically. 8. Amount was not deposited and the writ petition No.4348 of 2002 got dismissed. 9. The appellant herein carried the LPA against the dismissal of the writ petition. Said LPA No.113 of 2005 was dismissed by this Court finding that the appeal has no substance as well that the appellant management was not prepared to follow the directions given by the learned Single. 10. According to the applicant, due to changed circumstances i.e. as newly elected members of managing Committee who have recently entered the Office, have collected the funds and have lent money to the society due to which it became possible for the applicant to deposit the arrears of back-wages. 11. It is also urged and contended that now the respondent has been reinstated and in order to have the 4 Departmental Enquiry re-initiated, and to have some settlement on the amount of back-wages, the Management wants to pursue present application for review for restoration of the LPA, hearing and disposal thereof and ultimately, reopening of the writ petition. 12. Had it been the fact of matter that it was impossible for the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit the arrears of back wages, in the said situation, the writ petitioner could have brought on record all relevant facts and evidence and could have attempted to persuade the Single Judge as also the Bench hearing the Letters Patent Appeal as to appellant's genuine urge and capacities. Had some such effort been made, the situation may have been different. Appellant, however, chose to be stubborn and has invited the situation which it is facing. 13. This Court finds that the wisdom of depositing arrears which has of late dawned upon, cannot be a ground for review. 14. It is not the case of the management that there is any error whatsoever apparent on the face of record attributable to the Court or to the parties, warranting a review. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accede 5 to any point on merit of review. 15. This Court, therefore, considers that when the appeal itself is devoid of merit, it would be adding further to the process of injustice done at the hands of the appellants if the respondent is brought before the Court by issuing the notice on present application for condonation of delay. 16. In this situation, we hold that normal practice of issuing notice on each application for condonation of delay be departed, as we have scrutinized the merit of application for review, and having found that the application for review is meritless, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed without notice to the respondents. 17. We accordingly, dismiss the application for condonation of delay. The application for review shall stand automatically dismissed. Judge Judge //mule//