Superintendent appointed appellant. Here
The impugned order quashed and set aside. Application for condonation of delay allowed. Tribunal directed to register appeal upon compliance with legal requirements.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
WP 2201.2009- (J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2201 OF 2009
Balaji S/o Pandurang Manale Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Mangrul, Tq. : Ausa,
Dist. : Latur. .... PETITIONER
V E R S U S
M.I.D.C. Area, Ausa,
Tq. : Ausa, Dist. :
Latur..
Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V.Gundre, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Gunale, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2013
ORAL JUDGMENT :
learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.
2
WP 2201.2009- (J)
the petitioner was prosecuting the Writ Petition No. 2039 of 2005 challenging the action of otherwise termination bonafide and in good faith. The time was lost in prosecuting the Writ Petition. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have applied the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The delay caused was not intentional one. Even otherwise the petitioner would not gain by delay. The learned counsel on instructions of the petitioner states that in case the Appeal is allowed, the petitioner would waive back wages for the delayed period i.e. from the date of otherwise termination till the date of filing of the Appeal.
the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner was aware of the action in January, 2004. The Writ Petition was drafted in the year 2004 itself but was filed later. As such, the time from the said date till the date of filing of the Writ Petition can not be excluded. The proceedings of Writ Petition was not prosecuted bonafide and in good faith.
3
WP 2201.2009- (J)
The petitioner was aware that remedy of Appeal was pending before the Tribunal. Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable if the proceedings are prosecuted bonafide and in good faith. The circumstances are considered by the Tribunal.
the Order.
4
WP 2201.2009- (J)
to waive the back wages from the date of otherwise termination till the date
of filing of the Appeal if his Appeal is allowed by the Tribunal.
The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner in preferring the Appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal shall register the Appeal if it otherwise complies with all other legal requirements.
In case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion of allowing the Appeal, then the petitioner shall not be entitled for the monitory benefit i.e. back wages from the date of otherwise termination till the date of filing of the Appeal.
The parties shall appear before the School Tribunal, Latur on 04/03/2013.
[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
KNP/WP 2201.2009- (J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act applied to condone delay in filing an appeal to the School Tribunal.
Whether the petitioner prosecuted the Writ Petition bona fide justifying condonation of delay.
Whether the petitioner's offer to waive back wages upon success in the appeal affected the merits of the delay application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balaji S/o Pandurang Manale
Indira Memorial Education Society
Adarsh Vidyalaya
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur
S.V. Gangapurwala Jagdeep
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
