1. Appeal against High Court order setting aside condonation of delay in filing appeal before School Tribunal challenging termination. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1004
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
BALKRISHNA WAMAN ZAMBARE - Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SIDDHESHWAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, DONGARSONI & ORS. - Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7001 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10955 of 2019)
Decided On : 04-09-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar Rathod, Adv. Ms. Sheetal Patil,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar Rathod, Adv. Ms. Sheetal Patil,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv.
Delay in filing a service-related appeal should be condoned if the appellant demonstrates diligence via continuous correspondence and holds valid statutory approvals for their employment, ensuring they are not deprived of the right to challenge termination on merits to avoid great hardship.
Headnote:(A) Condonation of Delay - Appeal - Discretion to condone delay in filing an appeal before a Tribunal - Where there is evidence of repeated correspondence between the appellant and the respondent during the period of delay, indicating a lack of negligence, and where the appointment and promotion of the employee were duly approved by the competent education officer, the delay ought to be condoned to avoid great hardship and enable the employee to challenge the termination order on its merits. (Paras 7, 11)
Facts of the case:
An employee was appointed as a laboratory attendant and later promoted to a junior clerk, with both actions approved by the Education Officer. Following a dispute between two groups of trustees in the management of the educational institution, the employee was orally terminated from service. Despite representations and orders from the Education Officer directing the institution to allow the employee to join, the employee was not permitted to work. Eventually, the employee filed an appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the oral termination along with an application for condonation of delay. The School Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately two years and ten months based on records of repeated correspondence. However, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and declined to condone the delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the employee had been in repeated correspondence with the institution regarding the case between the date of termination and the filing of the appeal. Given that both the initial appointment and the subsequent promotion were approved by the District Education Officer, the employee should be granted an opportunity to challenge the termination orders to prevent great hardship.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the School Tribunal's order that condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the oral termination of service.
Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal before a tribunal should be condoned if the appellant demonstrates diligence through consistent communication with the respondent and possesses statutory approvals for their employment status, as denying the opportunity to challenge a termination under such circumstances would result in undue hardship.
Result: The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and this appeal is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought condonation of delay due to repeated correspondence; Management opposed delay condonation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Appellant had approvals from Education Officer and was in repeated correspondence, justifying condonation of delay to avoid hardship. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Delay in filing appeal should be condoned when appellant was in repeated correspondence and had approvals, to avoid great hardship. (Para 11 )
5. High Court order set aside; appeals restored to School Tribunal for expeditious disposal within six months. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. When should delay in filing an appeal before the School Tribunal be condoned?
Delay should be condoned if the appellant was in repeated correspondence with the employer and had approvals from the Education Officer, to avoid great hardship. (Para 10 , 11 )
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.:
Leave granted.
(2) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition NO.14384 of 2018 dated 04.03.2019 in and by which the High Court has set aside the order of the School Tribunal and declining to condone the delay in filing the petition before the School Tribunal.
(3) Brief facts are that the appellant was appointed in the respondent no.1 school as a laboratory attendant on a vacant permanent post vide appointment letter dated 06.10.1998. The appellant’s appointment as a laboratory attendant was approved by the Education Officer by Order dated 06.03.1999. According to the appellant, subsequently on 26.09.2011 the appellant was also promoted to the post of junior clerk by respondent no.1 school. Appellant’s promotion as a junior clerk was also approved by the Education Officer by an Order dated 15.10.2012.
(4) According to the appellant, there was dispute between two groups of trustees of respondent No.1-Institution. As the appellant was promoted by the previous body of trustees, the subsequently appointed new body which came to power on 22.11.2013, did not allow him to work and sign the school attendance register w.e.f. 30.11.2013 which amounts to oral termination. The appellant made various representations to various authorities expressing his grievance and vide letter dated 12.02.2014, the Education Officer directed Respondent No.1-Institution to allow the appellant to join his duties; but despite this order, the respondent-Institution did not allow him to join.
(5) As per the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.5758 of 2013 dated 14.01.2015, the Education Officer vide order dated 23.02.2015 granted approval for the promotion of the appellant to the post of junior clerk. Since the Education Officer has granted approval for the promotion of the appellant as junior clerk, the appellant has withdrawn the Writ Petition No.5758 of 2013.
(6) The respondent-Institution filed Writ Petition No.4470 of 2015 challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Education Officer granting approval for the promotion of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant requested the respondentInstitution by various representations to permit him to work as Laboratory Attendant but despite the same, the appellant was not allowed to work. By the order dated 02.05.2016, the High Court has set aside the approval granted by the Education Officer on 23.02.2015. Thereafter, the appellant had filed Appeal No.75 of 2016 challenging the oral termination dated 30.11.2013 of the post of Laboratory Attendant before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur along with Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016 praying for condonation of delay in filing the same. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent-Institution vide order dated 13.12.2016 has terminated the service of the appellant from the post of Laboratory Attendant. Being aggrieved by the termination order dated 13.12.2016, on 05.01.2017 the appellant has preferred Appeal No.01 of 2017 before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur.
(7) As pointed out earlier, the appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016 for condonation of delay of two years, ten months and fourteen days in challenging the order of oral termination dated 30.11.2013. The School Tribunal vide order dated 06.11.2017 condoned the delay by holding that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. The Tribunal further held that the appellant was in repeated correspondence with the respondent-Institution between 31.11.2013 and 04.11.2016 regarding his case and all correspondence have been filed on record and thus during the period of delay, the appellant was never negligent at all and hence, the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned. The Tribunal has thus allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent-Institution.
(8) Being aggrieved by condoning the delay, t
