Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Balkrishna Waman Zambare, was appointed as a laboratory attendant in the respondent school on 06.10.1998, approved by the Education Officer on 06.03.1999. He was promoted to junior clerk on 26.09.2011, approved on 15.10.2012. Due to a dispute between two groups of trustees, the new body that came to power on 22.11.2013 did not allow him to work from 30.11.2013, amounting to oral termination. Despite representations and an Education Officer's direction on 12.02.2014 to allow him to join, the respondent did not comply. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.5758 of 2013, and the Education Officer granted approval for his promotion on 23.02.2015, leading to withdrawal of the writ petition. However, the respondent challenged that approval, and the High Court set it aside on 02.05.2016. The appellant then filed Appeal No.75 of 2016 before the School Tribunal challenging the oral termination of 30.11.2013, along with an application for condonation of delay of two years, ten months and fourteen days. During pendency, the respondent terminated his service on 13.12.2016, prompting Appeal No.01 of 2017. The School Tribunal condoned the delay on 06.11.2017, finding the appellant had been in repeated correspondence and was not negligent. The respondent-Management challenged this in the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's order on 04.03.2019, dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court, hearing the appellant's appeal, noted that the appellant's appointments were approved by the District Education Officer and that he had been in continuous correspondence. The Court held that the delay should be condoned to enable the appellant to challenge the termination orders, as otherwise he would suffer great hardship. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the appeals before the School Tribunal, and directed expeditious disposal within six months, leaving all contentions open.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Condonation of Delay - School Tribunal - Sufficient Cause - The appellant was orally terminated from service on 30.11.2013 and filed an appeal before the School Tribunal with a delay of two years, ten months and fourteen days. The Tribunal condoned the delay holding that the appellant was in repeated correspondence with the respondent-Institution between 31.11.2013 and 04.11.2016 and was never negligent. The Supreme Court upheld the condonation, noting that the appellant's appointments were approved by the Education Officer and that he must be given an opportunity to challenge the termination to avoid great hardship (Paras 7-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the School Tribunal's order condoning the delay in filing the appeal challenging the oral termination, and whether the appellant should be given an opportunity to challenge the termination orders.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 04.03.2019, and restored Appeal Nos.75/2016 and 1/2017 before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to afford sufficient opportunity to both parties and dispose of the appeals expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt of the order. All contentions were left open.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- School Tribunal
- Service termination
- Oral termination
- Approval of appointment
- Repeated correspondence
- Sufficient cause
