Court Dismisses Petitioner's Appeal for Job Restoration Due to Inordinate Delay. Nearly 10-year delay in seeking appeal restoration and lack of adequate explanation lead to dismissal; court cites proactive pursuit of other legal remedies by petitioner

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a peon, challenged the dismissal of his appeal for restoration of employment, which had been dismissed due to inactivity. The Tribunal denied his application to restore the appeal, citing an inordinate delay of nearly 10 years. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the appeal's status due to the death of his advocate and pursued other legal remedies during this period. The court found no merit in his explanations, noting his proactive behavior in other related cases and suspecting deliberate absence. The writ petition was dismissed.

1. Rule and Admission Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter taken up for final hearing at admission stage with parties' consent. 2. Impugned Order Petitioner challenges the School Tribunal, Solapur's order dated 12.12.2023. Order rejected the petitioner's prayer to restore Appeal No.43/2006, dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.02.2012. 3. Petitioner's Submissions Petitioner appointed as Peon in 1995 with respondent no.2-School. Terminated orally on 03.04.2006; filed Appeal No.43/2006 under Section 9 of M.E.P.S. Act. Appeal allowed for stay on 31.01.2007; respondents did not comply. Education Officer approved appointment w.e.f. 16.06.2006 on 19.03.2008. Advocate expired; petitioner unaware of hearing dates, leading to dismissal on 09.02.2012. Filed application to restore appeal on 28.02.2022 after learning of dismissal on 09.11.2021, with delay condonation request. 4. Petitioner's Arguments Remediless without restoration; inadvertence due to advocate’s death. Interim orders kept him in service, unaware of dismissal. Cites judgments: N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil v. Godawaribai Gahirewar (1999) Shivaji Shivlingappa Kadge v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council (2005) 5. Respondent's Submissions AGP Mr. Jaware highlights 10-year delay with no adequate explanation. Petitioner benefited from interim orders but did not prosecute the appeal. Relies on: Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) Chandrakant Laxman Kulbhaiyya v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 6. Court's Observations Petitioner's continuous service since 1995 not officially approved before termination. Secured stay on termination, later received appointment approval. Petitioner's proactive pursuit in other related cases but neglected appeal. No specific date of advocate's death; petitioner’s conduct questioned. Tribunal's decision to reject restoration justified due to lack of bona fides. 7. Conclusion Petitioner's deliberate absence and benefit from interim orders noted. No justification for delay; lack of bona fides significant. Writ jurisdiction not warranted due to petitioner’s conduct. Writ Petition dismissed, no interference in impugned order. 8. Rule Discharged Rule is discharged.