1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 338 of 2011 Bharat Gaurav Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ..VS.. State of Mah. & others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Abhay Sambre, Adv. for the petitioner. Ms. Khan, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Y.P. Kaslikar adv. for respondent no.4. Mr. Khandalkar, Adv. for respondent no.5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 19 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati Division, Amravati, on 30.12.2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent no. 4 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against his termination. 2] The respondent no.4 was an employeed by the petitioner as a Physical Training Teacher in the school run and administered by the petitioner society. The respondent no.3, the Social Welfare Officer, had refused to grant approval to the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the ground that the respondent no.4 was overage at the time of his appointment. As the services of the respondent no. 4 were not approved by the respondent no.3, the petitioner society orally terminated the services of the respondent no.4, on 1.7.2007. The termination of the respondent no. 4 was challenged by the respondent no. 4 in an appeal before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer on 21.10.2008. Since there was some delay in filing the appeal, an 2 application for condonation of delay was filed. The same was allowed and the petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer allowing the application for condonation of delay. This court partly allowed W.P. No. 2641/2010 filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer for hearing the parties again after permitting them to place additional affidavits/documents on record. On a re- hearing, by the impugned order dated 30.12.2010, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer again allowed the application filed by the respondent no. 4. The petitioner has challenged the said order by this petition. 3] On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order along with the application filed by the respondent no. 4 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it appears that the Divisional Social Welfare Officer was justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent no. 4 has continuously worked with the petitioner from 2002 to 30.6.2007. Though the services of the respondent no. 4 were orally terminated on 1.7.2007, the respondent no. 4 did not file the appeal immediately as the respondent no.4 applied for the requisite documents from the respondent no. 2 under the Right to Information Act. The respondent no. 4 received the necessary information in the month of July- August, 2008. A notice for amicable settlement was also served by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner on 18.8.2008. It is the case of the respondent that the matter as regards amicable settlement was pending between the parties and ultimately, since the petitioner did not agree for an amicable settlement, the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same was filed on 21.10.2008. On an appreciation of the application, the reply filed thereto and the documents on record, the Divisional Social Welfare 3 Officer allowed the application filed by the respondent no.4. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 could not have filed another application for condonation of delay after the remand of the matter by the High Court and hence the Divisional Social Welfare Officer was not justified in considering that application, is rejected for the reasons that the writ petition was allowed by this court on 6th September, 2010 and this court had permitted the parties to place additional affidavits and documents on record. The application filed by the respondent no. 4 in the nature of an additional affidavit as the said application is supported by an affidavit of the respondent no.4. Since this court had permitted the parties to place additional affidavits and documents on record and since the additional affidavit was placed on record in the form of application for condonation of delay, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer was justified in considering the facts stated in the said application and allowing the application for condonation of delay. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan