1 W.P.No.3065.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3065 OF 2009 Shri Zakir Abdul Gani Deshmukh ... Petitioner v/s Dr.Shafiq Ahmed Nissar Ahmed, President, Anjuman Tahzeebul-Akhalaque & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.M.Kamble for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Talekar for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.R.Shaikh for respondent Nos.4, 6 to 9. Mr.R.D.Rane for respondent No.5. Smt.Nasreen Ayubi for respondent No.10. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed by a person claiming to have been an employee of respondent No.4 School. According to the petitioner, his services were illegally terminated on 30.7.2004 by respondent No.4. He approached both the 2 W.P.No.3065.10 Government authorities as well as the School for redressal of his grievance. According to the petitioner, since no action was taken by any of these authorities to redress his grievance, he approached the School Tribunal on 2.3.2006. Since there was delay the petitioner filed an application for condoning the delay along with the memo of his appeal. The Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of almost 20 months’. The Tribunal was of the view that the reasons given by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay were not sufficient and, therefore, rejected the application. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was pursuing his remedies with the Government authorities. There was no response from the authorities and it was only after he applied under the Right to Information Act that he was informed that an enquiry has been conducted behind his back by the concerned authorities. The concerned authorities never gave any notice to the petitioner while this enquiry was being conducted. It appears that the enquiry is completed some time in 2005. Even after 2005, the petitioner sought redressal of his grievance by corresponding with the authorities. However, since there was no response, he filed the appeal. 3 W.P.No.3065.10 3. It is true that the Maharashtra Employees Private Schools Act specifies that an appeal has to be filed within a stipulated period. The petitioner has been lax in filing the appeal within the specified period. However, there is material on record to indicate that he had corresponded with the trustees as well as the Government authorities seeking redressal of his grievance. It is not as if the petitioner had been negligent in resolving his grievance. It was only because there was no response from the authorities that he has filed this appeal. In these circumstances, in my view, the delay ought to have been condoned. 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 5. The delay is condoned. However, on payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the respondents. 6. The appeal to be numbered only after the costs are paid. ..... 4 W.P.No.3065.10