1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CAO 759/2010 with MCA St. No. 10771/2010 in Writ Petition No.592/1999 Gondia Education Society and another Vs. Mukesh Manubhai Patel and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv. for the applicants. Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. Kankale, AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 3nd SEPTEMBER 2010. 1] Heard Advocate Parchure for the petitioners, Advocate Bhandarkar for respondent no.1 and AGP Kankale for respondent no. 3. 2] By C. A. O. prayer is to condone delay of 305 days in filing MCA Stamp No.10771/10. MCA is for review of orders dated 21.7.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 592/1999. 3] The reasons for condonation of delay are earlier an application filed CAW No. 1565/2010 was moved seeking leave for speaking to minutes and after this Court found that the grievance made did not fall within four corners of said application, the present application has been filed. 4] CAW No. 1565/2010 has been disposed of on 25th June, 2010 and thereafter on 28th June 2010 the present 2 application came to be filed. 5] The grievance on merits in MCA Stamp No.10771/2010 is this Court was not correctly informed about the position in relation to arrears of salary payable to the petitioner therein. Contention is the statement of respondent no.1 Secretary as recorded at the end of paragraph 3 in the said order is incorrect and the petitioner in Writ Petition was not working as part time Lecturer. His entitlement is only as contributory Lecturer and on clock hour basis. It is urged that this mistake came to knowledge of present applicants(Management) only after the said petitioner filed contempt proceedings to recover the arrears as part time Lecturer. 6] Advocate Parchure has with the help of records, particularly the appointment orders annexed by the petitioner himself with original petition attempted to demonstrate that the said petitioner was admittedly working as contributory Lecturer and hence the statement as recorded is clearly erroneous. 7] Advocate Bhandarkar for original petitioner has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay as also the review application on merits. He points out immediately after the orders were pronounced in writ petition, the petitioner himself had filed CAW No. 1732/2009 making grievance that the concession given by his then Advocate was misconceived 3 and not binding on him. He has invited attention to the order dated 5th October 2009 passed by this Court on that application. He has urged that this Court has then reiterated that the said statement as recorded was correct. In any case the grievance about its incorrectness was not made at that stage. According to him, after those orders dated 5th October 2009 the petitioner-employee had no option but to file contempt proceedings and after the contempt proceedings were filed, the Management has come up with these applications. 8] We have perused all the orders. The case of applicants before us is that the position communicated to this Court on 21st July 2009 and as recorded in paragraph 3 of said order is contrary to records and incorrect. Perusal of annexure with the writ petition filed by the petitioner shows that there were two posts of Lecturers in commerce. In said advertisement dated 21.12.1993 one post was shown as fule time and other was shown as part time. The order of appointment dated 16.4.1994 reveals that the petitioner was appointed in pay scale and as a part time Lecturer. He was accordingly given approval also by Nagpur University on 28.6.1994. The appointment order 1.8.1994 mentions that he was appointed as contributory Lecturer with fixed honorarium. The appointment orders dated 4.9.1995, 15.7.1996, 30.7.1997 also reveal same position. The appointment order dated 20th September 1998 shows that the petitioner was appointed as contributory Lecturer on 4 honorarium of Rs. 40/- per period of 45 minutes. The annexure at Annexure I dated 18.2.2002 is order sent by applicants to the petitioner. It mentions that the petitioner was then Lecturer in commerce in part time scale and he was placed as full time Lecturer in place of one Shri Y. N. Nasre. The University had also filed reply/affidavit before this Court on 2.12.2000 and disclosed that the petitioner was approved as part time Lecturer and it was not aware of any appointment as either contributory or on clock hour basis. 9] It is to be noted that when the writ petition was being heard finally on 21st December 2009 statements have been made not only by the applicants but also by the respondent and the same find mention in the Court order. Grievance about incorrectness of those statements or then absence of authority in his counsel was made by employee by filing Civil Application No.1732/2009. That time, learned counsel for employee has urged that statement of Secretary of employer that entire arrears of salary have been paid as recorded was incorrect. After hearing respective counsel this Court has noted that the statement was made before before it and was accordingly recorded. It is, therefore, apparent that that was the occasion on which the applicants now before us had again notice of the statements recorded in the order. The contention that the statement made by Secretary and recorded by this Court came to its notice only after contempt was filed, therefore, cannot be accepted. 5 10] Not only this, but after going through material as shown to us, we do not find that such statement could not have been made by Secretary of the school. It is not even the attempt to show that secretary did not communicate the said fact to learned counsel. Learned Counsel has not stated that he had not understood correctly what Secretary conveyed to him. 11] In view of this, we find substance in the contention of employee that grievance as made is by way of afterthought. We are therefore, no inclined, to condone the delay or review the order. Both the applications are accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.