k 1/3 44 wp 18737.24 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.18737 OF 2024 Mustaf Dhulaso Manure ....Petitioner V/S Ramlingeshwar Samaj Seva Mandal & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. Gajanan M. Savagave for the Petitioner. Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.3/State. __________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 29 JANUARY 2025. P.C.: 1. By this Petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 14 October 2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur in Miscellaneous Application No.55 of 2023 for condonation of delay in filing appeal challenging the termination order dated 3 February 2020. 2. I have heard Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. 3. Petitioner alleges that his services were orally terminated on 3 February 2020. He filed appeal alongwith application for katkam Page No. 1 of 3 k 2/3 44 wp 18737.24 as.doc condonation of delay on 26 October 2023 after delay of 3 years 7 months and 23 days. The only explanation pleaded in the application for condonation of delay is to be found in paragraph 7 of the application, which reads thus: “(७) मा्ऺ २०२० नंतर संपू्ळ भारतात कोविड- १९ या सांसषॿक रोा्ऺा ्ऺादुभा ाढत ेल्याने लॉकडाऊन घोवि%त करण्यात आले बाहेर िऻहडण्या- वि+रण्यार ्ऺतितबंध होता, तसे्ऺ अ़्दार यांनी त्यांना कामार घेण्याकरिरता सामनेाले नं. १ ते ३ यां्ऺेकडे ेळोेळी विनयविमतप्ळे पाठपुराा के ला, त्यामुळे विहीत मुदतीत अ़्दार यांना सदरहू तोंडी आदेशाविरुध्द अपील दाखल करता आले नाही. त्या्ऺ्ऺमा्ळे अ़्दार यांनी सामनेाले शिश्ष्ळातिधकारी यांच्याकडे माविहती अतिधकारात अ़् के ले, परंतु सामनेाले नं. २ यांनी उडाउडी्ऺे उ्तर देऊन माविहती विदली नाही. अ़्दार हे मा्ळी करीत असलेली कादप्ऴे ्याी, असा आदेश सामनेाले नं. ३ यांनी सामनेाले नं. २ यांना के लेला आहे. परंतु अ्यापही सामनेाले नं. २ यांनी ़्ा्ळीपूक माविहती विदलेली नाही. त्या्ऺ्ऺमा्ळे सेा समा्मी्ऺे आदेशाविरुध्द या मा. न्यायातिधकर्ळामध्ये विकती मुदतीत दाद मााी, याब्दल देखील माविहती, ्ञान अ़्दारास नसल्यानेही मुदतीत दाद माता आली नाही.” 4. Beyond citing the pretext of Covid-19 pandemic Petitioner has not pleaded any specific ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 3 years, 7 months and 23 days. All the restrictions relating to Covid-19 pandemic were lifted and the suspension of period of limitation came to an end on 28 February 2022. However even after lifting of the pandemic restrictions, Petitioner did not file appeal for over one year and eight months without any justification. In my view, no justifiable cause was katkam Page No. 2 of 3 k 3/3 44 wp 18737.24 as.doc made out by the Petitioner before the Tribunal for condonation of delay of 3 years, 7 months and 23 days. It must be borne in my mind that the period of limitation prescribed under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 is only 30 days. Therefore, adequate justification was required to be pleaded especially in the light of the fact that the delay was inordinate. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 3 of 3 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2025.01.30 18:27:30 +0530