IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 WRIT PETITION NO. 13491 OF 2025 NUTAN MAHILA SARVODAYA BAL VIKAS SANSTHA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND ORS VERSUS NARENDRA SHANKAR JOSHI AND ANOTHER ….. Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for the Petitioners CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 13/11/2025 PER COURT :- 1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners challenges the order dated 12/09/2025 whereby in an Appeal filed by the Respondent- employees delay of 165 days in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 2. It is the case of the Respondent-employee that since 01/08/1995 he was performing his duty as Headmaster. There was some dispute pending between the members of the management and Deputy Charity Commissioner. It is also stated that the respondent-Headmaster was orally terminated from service on 915 WP 13491.2025.odt 1 of 7 2025:BHC-AUG:31359 25/04/2024 and that he challenged the said termination before the School Tribunal on 28/10/2024 along with an application for condonation of delay of 165 days. In the application for condonation of delay he specifically observed paragraph 8, 9 and 10 as under: ^^8½ ,danjhr lkeusokyk uacj 2 ;kauh csdk;ns’khji.ks lnj vtZnkjkl R;kps eq[;k/;kid inkoj dke dj.;kl eTtko dsysyk vlqu R;kaps tkxh fnukad 25@04@2024 jksth izHkkjh eq[;k/;kid lkeusokyk uacj 3 ;kauk useysys vkgs- vtZnkjkl ;kal 'kkGsr ?kql.;kr ns[khy lkeusokyk uacj 2 o 3 gs eTtko djhr vlqu ,danjhr vtZnkjkl eq[;k/;kid inkoj dke dj.;kiklqu ijko`Rr dsY;keqGs R;k csdk;ns'khj d`R; d:u lkeusokyk uacj 2 ;kauh csdk;ns'khji.ks vtZnkjkph lsok vU;Fkk lekIrh (Otherwise Terminate) dsysyh vkgs- 9½ ojhy ?kVuslaca/kkus o >kysY;k vU;k;k fo:/n lnj vtZnkjkus lkeusokyk uacj 4 ;kapsdMs fnukad 26@04@2024 jksth rdzkj vtZ fnyk gksrk o R;kdkeh pkSd'kh d:u U;k; feG.;kph fouarh dsyh gksrh- ek= lkeusokyk uacj 4 ;kauh ns[khy R;k ?kVusph dqByhgh pkSd'kh dsyh ukgh o vtZnkjkl U;k; fnyk ukgh- 10½ oj ueqn ifjfLFkrhr vtZnkjkl vfiy nk[ky dj.;kl 165 fnolkapk foyac >kysyk vkgs- rks foyac ekQ gksowu feG.ksdjhrk lnjpk vtZ nk[ky dj.ks U;k; o t:j >kysys vkgs- R;klkBh lnjpk vtZ nk[ky dsysyk vkgs-** 3. It is the contention of the employee in the application for condonation of delay that he was not allowed to work from 25/04/2024 onwards. Thereafter he made an application before the Education Officer on 26/04/2024 stating that the present petitioner is not allowing him to work on his post. Considering the same that he was not allowed to work, the employee filed an Appeal 915 WP 13491.2025.odt 2 of 7 before the School Tribunal challenging his oral termination with the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing appeal which is allowed by the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the employee was terminated by written order on 20/04/2024. There is delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. He submits that there is written termination order of 20/04/2024 and that the same is still in operation and there is no challenge to the same. The written termination order is still in operation and it necessary for the respondent to amend his application before the Tribunal to challenge the order dated 20/04/2024 and to explain the delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. He also submits that the delay of 165 days is not appropriately explained in filing the appeal and he relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of Mathuradas Mohota College of Science Vs. R.T. Borkar and Ors., MANU/MH/0835/1996, at paragraph 9 as under: “9. Section 9 of the MEPS Act provides that the appeal shall lie to the School Tribunal and the said appeal shall be made by the employee within 30 days from the date of receipt by him of order of dismissal, removal or otherwise termination of his service. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 provides that the Tribunal may entertain appeal after expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that the 915 WP 13491.2025.odt 3 of 7 appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. Thus, the provision has been made to entertain time-barred appeal on a sufficient cause being shown by the appellant and the Tribunal is satisfied. Eventhough this is a rule of procedure and liberally construed to impart substantive justice, it cannot be forgotten that it is a statutory provision and, therefore, it is necessary for the appellant to show sufficient cause far not preferring the appeal within the time limit prescribed. Absolute absence on the part of the appellant to explain the delay and or to furnish cause to the satisfaction of the Tribunal takes away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal. It is pertinent to note in the present matter that the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated with effect from 17th March 1982 by order dated 16th March 1982 and, therefore, appeal should have been filed on or before 15th April 1982. However, the respondent No. 1 has filed appeal on 22nd Nov. 82 and thus, there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal, The said delay was not explained even formally assigning any sufficient cause so that it can be considered by the Tribunal to satisfy itself to condone the delay and entertain the appeal. We also do not find in the judgment of the Tribunal any sufficient cause being considered by the Tribunal and the delay has been condoned by the Tribunal and, therefore, we feel that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in entertaining the appeal and exercising the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, we find that the order of the Tribunal is bad and illegal, and is required to be quashed and set aside.” 5. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Lok Shikshan Sanstha and Ors. Vs. Vasant and Ors., MANU/MH/3280/2018 at paragraph No.15 as under: “15. There is no doubt that a liberal approach is advised in considering applications for condonation of delay and that substantial delay in some cases 915 WP 13491.2025.odt 4 of 7 has been condoned by the Courts. But, in all such cases, the reasons put forth by the person applying for condonation of delay have been found to be cogent and reasonable, constituting sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the present case, the explanation sought to be given in paras 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay is absolutely vague. There is no explanation given as to what prevented respondent No. 1 from approaching the Tribunal within the period of limitation after the order of termination of service was passed on 03/11/2011. It is also not explained as to what prevented respondent No. 1 from taking immediate steps to approach the Tribunal after the order of acquittal dated 01/09/2015 was passed by the Trial Court, if the aforesaid assurance given by the petitioner-Management was true and the version of respondent No. 1 was to be believed. The entire application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 is absolutely silent on the reasons that prevented respondent No. 1 from approaching the Tribunal within the period of limitation or within a reasonable period from the order of termination dated 03/11/2011, passed by the petitioners. In this situation, it is difficult to accept the explanation sought to be given by respondent No. 1 and it becomes clear that the Tribunal committed an error in condoning the delay without adverting to these aspects of the present case.” 6. Considered the submission. It is stated in the delay condonation application that the applicant was orally terminated and not allowed to work from 25/04/2024. Immediately on 26/04/2024 he had complained to the Education Officer. The institution being grant-in-aid institution and there could be 915 WP 13491.2025.odt 5 of 7 supervisory control of the Education Officer. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter and condoned the delay of 165 days. It is also noticed that the appeal cannot be thrown out on technical grounds as he has a good case. 7. I have perused the judgment of this Court in case of Mathuradas Mohota College of Science (supra), wherein this Court has held that in a time barred appeal, delay cannot be condoned unless the Tribunal is satisfied and sufficient reasons are given. The delay has to be condoned liberally to impart substantive justice however, it cannot be forgotten that it is a statutory provision and therefore it is necessary for the appellant to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time limit prescribed. Absolute absence on the part of the appellant to explain the delay and or to furnish cause to the satisfaction of the Tribunal takes away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal. 8. The Tribunals has considered the reasons as noted above and the delay of 165 days in filing Appeal is condoned. This Court cannot be too technical in condoning delay when substantive right of the parties are involved. No interference can be caused in 915 WP 13491.2025.odt 6 of 7 the order condoning the delay. 9. In view of this, Writ Petition is dismissed. (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) ssp 915 WP 13491.2025.odt 7 of 7