Sarita Tiwari & ANR v. Ganga International School & ORS

$~4.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 96/2016 SARITA TIWARI & ANOTHER ..... Appellants Through Mr. Anil Sehgal, Advocate.

versus M/S GANGA INTL. SCHOOL & ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Kamal Gupta & Ms. Tripti Gupta, Advocates for respondent No. 1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 22.08.2016 CM No. 5221/2016 Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 5223/2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 16 days in re-filing is condoned.

CM No. 5222/2016 This is an application for condonation of delay of 266 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. The reasons given for condonation of delay are to be found in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, which for the

sake of convenience, are reproduced below:- "2.

That after passing of the judgment on 02.03.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 6456 of 2015, the Appellants have been consulting several lawyers for filing LPA against the impugned judgment but due to financial constraints, the matter could not have been taken up by any lawyer. The Appellant also remained occupied in their social and family commitments during this period.

3.

That finally, the appellants contacted the present Advocates, who finally took up the matter and applied for certified copies of the complete record relating to the writ petition and the impugned judgment. The same was applied on 10th Sept. 2015 and the certified copies were finally ready on 07.11.2015, which took about 58 days. Thereafter finalisation of LPA also took some time."

The respondent-school in the reply has stated that the appellants are gainfully employed and have been working as teachers for last more than six years. In fact, the appellants had resigned from the respondent-school to join and take employment in another school.

Counsel for the appellants, during the course of hearing, has accepted the said factual position and on being asked he has stated that the appellants are drawing a salary of about Rs.30,000-40,000/- per month. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 266 days for the reasons set out in the application. It is noticeable that the

impugned order dismisses the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches noticing the fact that the writ petition was filed in September 2014, whereas the appellant No. 1 had resigned as a teacher on 31st March, 2009 and the appellant No. 2 had resigned as a teacher on 3rd February, 2009. The circular issued by the Directorate of Education, relied upon by the appellants, is dated 11th February, 2009. This is not a case of continuing cause of action as after the resignation the employer-employee relationship had ceased. The claim raised pertains to arrears of pay. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 266 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal will be also treated as dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 22, 2016 VKR