1 wp-3625-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 3625 OF 2009 The Secretary Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Kapur Khed and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Mrs.Sunita Laxman Kaledhonkar and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. A.V.Anturkar Counsel i/b Mr.Sugandh B.Deshmukh Adv. for Petitioners Mr.A.M.Joshi Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Educational Institution and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-Appellant. 2. The case of the Respondent No.1 is that she was appointed on 7.9.1995 as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the Petitioner- Institution. It is her case that she came to be terminated from service in the year 1998. Being aggrieved by the termination, she preferred appeal before the School Tribunal being Appeal No. 125 of 2002. There was delay of 4 years, 9 months and 5 days in preferring the said appeal. Hence, an application for condonation of delay was preferred 2 wp-3625-09 in the appeal. The said delay came to be condoned by order dated 23.2.2009. Being aggrieved thereby, this petition has been preferred. 3. Mr.Anturkar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that earlier by order dated 10.10.2008, the School Tribunal had condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The said order came to be challenged by the Petitioners before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7559 of 2008. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 20.1.2009. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the said order, it is observed as under: “ If more than one period of time is involved, then the Tribunal is duty bound to consider the causes putforth by the applicant with reference to those periods. All this is awfully lacking in the present order. The impugned order is therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. ” 4. He submitted that after the matter was remanded, again the delay came to be condoned by order dated 23.2.2009. However, the said order is not in consonance with the order passed by this Court on 20.1.2009. In the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by this Court, it is specifically observed that if more than one more period of time is involved, the Tribunal is duty bound to consider the "causes put forward by the applicant with reference to those periods." I have perused the order dated 23.2.2009. No doubt, in the said order, the different 3 wp-3625-09 periods of time involved, have been mentioned. However, the order is totally silent on the causes put forward by the applicant with reference to those periods. It may be stated here that there is dispute in relation to the date of termination. According to the petitioners, the date of termination is 30.4.1998. To support this contention, reliance is placed on the termination letter dated 23.3.1998 wherein it is stated that services of Respondent No.1 stands terminated with effect from 30.4.1998. There is an endorsement on the letter to be purportedly signed by Respondent No.1 which states that the copy of the said communication is received. However, Mr.Joshi, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 states that Respondent No.1 was orally terminated on 30th June, 1998. After the Respondent No.1 was terminated from service, she has approached Lokayukta on 27.6.1998 and Deputy Ayukta on 7.7.1998. In view of the controversy relating to the date of termination, I will not consider the period from the date of termination till the date that the Respondent no.1 approached Lokayukta. However, it is seen that Lokayukta, by order dated 22.4.1999 informed the Respondent No.1 that no fault can be found with the order of termination. The said order is dated 22.4.1999. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 filed appeal before the Tribunal on 21.5.1999. The said appeal came to be withdrawn on 16.12.1999. Thereafter, civil suit came to be preferred by the Respondent no.1 on 7.4.2000, which was 4 wp-3625-09 withdrawn on 31.10.2002. Thereafter, Appeal No. 125 of 2002 was preferred before the Tribunal on 11.12.2002. It is seen that in between the various proceedings preferred by the Respondent no.1, there is delay. The order of this Court specifically states that the Tribunal is duty bound to consider causes put forth by the applicant with reference to those periods. However, the order of the Tribunal whereby, delay came to be condoned, makes no reference to any causes being put forth by the applicant with reference to any of these periods. In the present case, the delay has occurred at many stages but, there is no reference to the causes for delay put forth by the Respondent no.1 with reference to any of these periods nor has the Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay with reference to those periods. Thus, it is seen that the order of the Tribunal is not in consonance with the order of this Court dated 20.1.2009. Hence, the order of Tribunal dated 23.2.2009 whereby delay came to be condoned, is set aside. The Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh and decide the application in consonance with the order of this Court dated 20.1.2009. 5. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]