1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2132 OF 2010 (Ravindra Pralhadji Khedikar vs. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 03, 2010. Heard Shri Adbe, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sudame, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mrs. Wasnik, learned AGP for respondents No. 1, 4 & 5. The delay of more than 10 years has not been condoned by the School Tribunal vide its order dated 28.10.2009 and that order is assailed in present writ petition. Attention is invited by learned counsel for the petitioner to the application for condonation of delay to state that right from 1994 till 2004, the proceedings in relation to earlier termination were pending before various forums including this Court and those proceedings were terminated on 22.01.2004. In the process, he got some amount and because of that amount he could file the appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the second 2 termination dated 30.04.1994. Thus, poverty is stated to be the reason for delay. Shri Sudame, learned counsel points out that the proceedings were pending before this Court and the compromise was reached there on 17.10.2003 and as a part of that compromise, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid to present petitioner and all disputes between parties were put to an end. The learned counsel contends that after that pursis and settlement, the grievance against termination dated 30.04.1994 also does not survive. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the compromise has got no bearing on subsequent termination. With the assistance of both counsel, I have perused the impugned order as also the application for condonation of delay. The pursis dated 17.10.2003 amicably settling the controversy in Contempt Appeal No. 15 of 1994 was not specifically pointed out to School Tribunal and the petitioner has not stated that that compromise pertained only to earlier termination. The stand sought to be taken is, therefore, by way of after thought and cannot be accepted. The School Tribunal has considered this concealment also. The matters were pending before various forums and the 3 petitioner was contesting those matters. He could have very well, therefore, made grievance about his subsequent termination also. Therefore, I do not find any perversity or error in the approach of School Tribunal. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.