1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6952 OF 2009 Balaji Narayan Jamadar, Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Yenegur, Tq. Umarga, District Osmanabad. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. Hemantkumar F. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for Resp.Nos.1,3 & 4. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the 2 Constitution of India, the petitioner - original appellant challenges the order dated 23-06-2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No. DB/Appeal/Cell/37/2009 rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in preferring appeal under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad, District Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad in Case No. ZPO/Appeal/A-7/Kavi/484/2005, dated 06-06-2005. 3. A few facts of the case are as under. . The petitioner has been rendering services in the Establishment of respondent No.2 in Primary Health Centre at Yermala on the post of driver. On 21-02-2004 the Officer-on-duty in Primary Health Centre has reported to higher authority that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor and rudely behaved in the 3 office and assaulted and threatened the colleague workmen. Therefore, respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after following due process of law and considering the petitioner's explanation dated 05-05-2005 passed order dated 06-06-2005 holding the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 06-06-2005 the petitioner written letter dated 31-08-2005 to Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad requesting to recall the order dated 06-06-2005. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad by its letter dated 03-09-2008 informed the petitioner that he has to prefer appropriate proceedings under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) NO.61/2007 in the Industrial Court, Latur on 22-10-2007 4 under Section 28 Schedule IV Item Nos. 9 & 10 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Said complaint was decided on merits by the Industrial Court, Latur by judgment dated 17-04-2008. Said order of Industrial Court not challenged by petitioner in any Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 02-12-2008 and also filed application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose any reason for delay of 3 years 2 months and 29 days in preferring the appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that when he made representation to the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad by his letter dated 5 31-08-2005, it was replied by the Department on 01-10-2008 and at that time, he learnt that he has to prefer appropriate proceedings under Rules of 1964. Therefore, there was delay in preferring appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. He further stated in his application for condonation of delay that for want of knowledge and financial crisis, it remained on the part of the petitioner to take immediate action for preferring the appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner failed to explain inordinate delay of 1184 days in preferring the appeal. 6. I have gone through the order dated 06-06-2005 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Osmanabad and judgment dated 17-04-2008 passed by the Industrial Court,Latur. The petitioner in his application for 6 condonation of delay stated that office of the Commissioner informed him on 01-09-2008 that he has to prefer appropriate appeal and therefore, there was delay in preferring the appeal. He further stated in his application that because of financial difficulties, it remained on his part to take immediate action. Except these two grounds, the petitioner has not disclosed any other reason for inordinate delay of 3 years 2 months and 29 days. The Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the Court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within prescribed period. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier the sufficient cause must 7 establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause. In the present case, the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of 3 years 2 months and 29 days in preferring appeal. 7. Considering all these facts, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 23-06-2009 and therefore, Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/OCT09/wp6952.09