-1- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3656/2008. ( Bahu Uddeshiya Arogya .vrs. Devendar Shrawanji Rawale ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2008. Heard Advocate Shri De, for petitioners and Advocate Shri Shingne, holding for Advocate Shri Kilor, for respondent no.1. Advocate Shri De, argues that the School Tribunal has condoned delay of more than 9 months in filing appeal before it, though there were no just and sufficient reasons for that purpose. He contends that services have been terminated by written order dated 17.04.2007 which has been duly served through R.P.A.D. upon the present respondent on 23.04.2007 and thereafter the appeal has been filed on 14.01.2008 with a prayer for condonation of delay. He points out that the story given in the application for condonation of delay, that the employee [respondent no.1] was unwell from -2- 9.11.2006 till 28.04.2007 and thereafter, made efforts to join duties from 28.04.2007 to 11.12.2007, is not borne out from record. He further states that respondent no.1 / employee was absent without intimation from 10.10.2006. Advocate Shri Shingne, points out that the termination pointed out to the School Tribunal is dated 9.11.2006 and no grievance has been made about any termination dated 17.04.2007. He states that the School Tribunal has condoned the delay in relation to termination dated 9.11.2006 and the subsequent termination by alleged R.P.A.D. communication dated 17.4.2007 is not relevant in the present circumstances. Perusal of the memo of appeal shows that the respondent no.1 has challenged his termination w.e.f. 9.11.2006, thus cause in relation to which he has approached the School Tribunal is that termination. The contention of Management that he has been terminated on 17.4.2007 is therefore, not relevant at this stage to consider the prayer for condonation of delay. The arguments advanced therefore no where show that there are no just and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay or that the School Tribunal has exercised the jurisdiction not available with it in the matter. No perversity or jurisdictional error in the approach of the School Tribunal is pointed out. No case is made out for exercising writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. -3- However, it is made clear that this Court has not considered whether the services have been terminated on 9.11.2006 or on 17.4.2007 as sought to be urged by the petitioner. The issue can gone into by the School Tribunal at appropriate stage. JUDGE Rgd.