Sonam Singh v. Mahila Samiti English School Thakurli And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12989 OF 2024 Sonam Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Mahila Samiti English School Thakurli and Ors

...Respondents

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Date:

2025.12.08 21:11:47 +0530 SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Ms. Sadhna Singh, for Petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, for Respondent No. 3-KDMC. Smt. V. R. Raje, AGP, for Respondent No. 4.

CORAM

: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Date : December 4, 2025 ORDER :

1.

The order impugned in this Petition is an order dated July 1, 2024, by which the application filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of more than thirty days was dismissed on the premise that the Petitioner has not been able to even establish when she was terminated, in order to challenge the termination. 2.

It is the case of the Petitioner that she was terminated, with effect from January 2024, because after this month, she has not been paid any salary. She has neither been issued any termination notice nor have any proceedings been conducted asking her to show cause as to

why she should not be terminated.

3.

It is in these circumstances, that she contends that she was terminated in January 2024. In the absence of a termination letter, the School Tribunal's finding that the Petitioner has not brought on record any termination letter, is interfered with in terms of this order. 4.

It is appropriate to permit the Petitioner to file collateral documentary evidence, such as bank statements, which would demonstrate that after a certain date, regular receipts of salary received until then, ceased to be received, and that shall be treated as a date of termination.

5.

The Petition is disposed of, permitting the Petitioner to file a fresh application before the School Tribunal demonstrating the date from which she was not paid any salary, so that the Tribunal could treat such date as the date of termination. As regards joinder of parties, it would be open to the Petitioner to examine who should be the appropriate members of the management, who should be arraigned. If the Petitioner is unable to find out who the relevant office-bearers are, it would be adequate to name the Headmaster as the relevant official.

6.

In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside with the aforesaid directions, with liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh set of proceedings, as permitted above.

7.

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's website.

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]