ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench dated 8th May, 2009 in CWP No.4089(S) in and by which the Division Bench upheld the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal dated 18th March, 2009 passed in First Appeal No.120 of 2008 along with First Appeal No.67 of 2009. The Tribunal by the said order held that the appellnt's applicatikon filed under section 55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act was belated by 2 days and since there being no provision for condoning any delay in filing of the appeal and section 5 of the Limitation Act was also not applicable, the application of the appellant against the order of punishment was liable to be rejected. The Division Bench having now confirmed the said order of the Tribunal the appellant is before us.

3. To briefly narrate the sequence of events, the appellant is an employee of the respondent Bank which is a Cooperative Bank. For certain acts of misconduct, he was proceeded against and by an order dated 8th August, 1995 he was imposed with the punishment of freezing of 5 increments which resulted in his then current salary of Rs.1,600/- which was brought down to the minimum level of Rs.1,180/-. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Registrar on 11th September, 1995. As per section 55(2) of the Act, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 8th September, 1995. Unfortunately, the Deputy Registrar who was competent to decide his application by his order dated 16th April, 2002, upheld the order of punishment dated 8th August, 1995. It must be stated that at that point of time, the question of limitation appeared to have been not raised by the respondent herein. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar who partially allowed his appeal by his order dated 29th April, 2003.

4. As against the said order, the appellant as well as the respondent preferred appeals before the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal by its order dated 24th July, 1996, in Second Appeals 1 and 18 of 2002 remitted the matter back to the Joint Registrar for fresh disposal. The Joint Registrar by his order dated 21st April, 2008, again partially allowed the case of the appellant which gave rise to filing of two appeals before the appellate Tribunal in First Appeals No.120 of 2008 and 67 of 2009. It must be stated that till the above appeals came to be disposed of, the quiestion of limitation was not a point in issue before any of the former earlier.

5. By the order dated 18th March, 2009, the Tribunal for the first time dealt with the question of limitation after having noted that there was two days delay in filing the appeal and there being no provision for condoning the delay by the original authority, rejected the original application itself on the ground of delay. The appellant challenged the said order in the writ petition. The Division Bench has now passed the impugned order dated 8th May, 2009 affirming the view of the Tribunal by following the decision of this Court reported in Noharlal Verma v. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur [(2008)14 SCC 445], and held that the application of the appellant was barred by limitation and there was no power for the original authority to condone any delay and consequently, the application itself was held as not maintainable.

6. Assailing the said order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the decision relied upon by the Division Bench is no longer good law in the light of the recent decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra and another v. Anshuman Shukla [(2014)10 SCC 814], rendered by a Bench consisting of three Judges of this Court, wherein they have followed earlier well considered decision in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpuriyal Aboobacker [(1995)5 SCC 5]. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of the above decisions when in an ident