vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2955 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2955 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2955 OF 2008 Balu Shrimant Sarvade ... Petitioner V/s. Veer Savarkar Vidyalay Ballalwadi (Pangari Matha) & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.L. Patil for Petitioner Mr.A.M. Joshi for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Petition challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal dismissing the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 419 days. The Tribunal has considered the documents on record and has held that no case is made out by the petitioner for condoning the delay. In his application filed before the Tribunal for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner has stated that his services were terminated on 13.5.2006. According to him, the termination of service is illegal and has been made under the Secondary School Code. The petitioner approached the Education Officer with the help of his union. The Education Officer directed the respondent management by his order dated 2.6.2006 to reinstate the petitioner. This order was not complied with nor was it : 2 : challenged by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, through his union again requested the Education Officer to intervene in the matter. Another letter was issued by the Education Officer on 20.7.2006 directing the management to reinstate the employee i.e. the petitioner herein. However, there was no compliance with the order nor was there any challenge to that order by the management. 2. Mr.Patil appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should not be penalised for seeking redressal of his grievance before a wrong forum. He submits that after the order passed by the Education Officer, the petitioner had approached the management of the school for implementation of the order. However, no action was taken by the management. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has a good case on merits and the delay has been caused because of the wrong advice and because the petitioner required some time to collect all the documents and to arrange for funds for filing the appeal. 3. Mr.Joshi appearing for the Respondent vehemently opposes the petition and submits that The delay from 20.7.2006 to 7.8.2007 is unexplained and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from the School Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has : 3 : rightly and justifiably rejected the application for interim relief. In my view, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified. There is no dispute that the petitioner had approached a wrong forum for redressal of his grievance. Although the Education Officer had directed the management to implement its order directing reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages, the management chose not to do so. It is for this reason that the petitioner was constrained to file the appeal which according to him is proper remedy for setting aside the order of of termination of service. 4. Apart from this, the petitioner should not be penalised for the wrong advice that was given to him and in my view, the delay can be condoned. The Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 5. Petition is therefore allowed. Delay condoned. Appeal to be registered.