Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jayantilal M. Rathod on 7 April, 2003
Author: A.L. Dave
Bench: A.L. Dave
JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna
1. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 1404 days caused in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.10.1996, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6112 of 1986, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the opponents-original petitioners and directed the present applicants-appellants to pay wages to the original petitioners in accordance with the ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the 20th November, 1986, in the writ petition and to continue to pay the same to the petitioners. The learned Single Judge also held that the petitioners shall be entitled to daily wages equivalent to the salary of an employee appointed on regular establishment performing the same job. The learned Single Judge also directed the present applicants-appellants to consider the case of the original petitioners for absorption on the regular establishment in accordance with the prevalent Rules/ Regulations/Government Policy in case the petitioners were not absorbed till the date of the order.
2. It is averred in paragraph 2 of this application that, "unfortunately and because of administrative reasons though the Govt. decided to file appeal against the said order, the same could not be filed. Even in the civil application for stay of order, affidavit was sworn by the concerned officer, it seems that the same was not filed by the Govt. Solicitor representing the Government at the relevant time....."
2.1 In paragraph 5 of this application, it is stated that, "Applicants submit that they are under the impression that the appeal has been filed before the honourable Court challenging the order of learned Single Judge. However it came to know recently that the appeal was not filed and the opponents herein continue to be drawing salary at par with regular employees. The applicants herein immediately took necessary action to contact the present Solicitor for preferring the appeal. After taking a decision to file appeal against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge, applicants again approached Govt. Solicitor to file the appeal. The sets of appeal papers along with annexures and other papers are prepared and now the appeal is filed. Applicants submit that in filing the appeal there caused delay of about 1404 days, which may be condoned in the interest of justice."
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Pancholi, for the applicants-appellants, relying on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katij & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353, which was relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rameshchandra Joshi, 2002(3) GLR 2332, submitted that though there is a gross delay of 1404 days, the same may be condoned and, by condoning the delay, no prejudice is going to be caused to the opponents-original petitioners, and the matter may be heard and decided on merits.
4. It is true that this Court in Rameshchandra Joshi's case (supra) condoned the delay of more than five years in filing the appeal. One of us (B.J. Shethna, J.) was a party to that judgment. However, with due respect to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we fail to understand as to how the aforesaid judgment of this Court would have any application to the facts of the present case. Rameshchandra Joshi's case (supra) was arising out of Land Acquisition matter and there was a direct judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Katij's case (supra), whereas the case on hand is arising out of a service matter and the opponents-petitioners are poor Watchmen. They had approached this Court by way of a writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. There was interim order operating in their favour since 1986. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Miss R.M. Doshit, J.) allowed the writ petition on 1.10.1996. The applicant-appellant should have approached this Court within the period of limitation. If there was a delay of few days or months, then perhaps this Court would have considered the application for condoning the delay. But that is not the case here. In the instant case, there is a delay of more than four years and no cause much less sufficient cause is made out in this application for condoning the gross delay of 1404 days. Therefore, such a gross delay cannot be condoned.
5. In case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that such circumstances can hardly be said to be reasonable, satisfactory or proper for condoning the delay. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran, there was a delay of 565 days, but the Honourable Supreme Court refused to condone the delay. We are bound by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court.
6. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri Pancholi, tried to rely upon a later judgment of the Honourable Suprme Court in case of Indra Nand Mishra & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., J.T. 2000(5) SC 390, wherein there was a delay of 679 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Honourable Supreme Court. We have carefully gone through the above said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Indra Nand Mishra's case (supra). Having carefully gone through the said judgment, it is clear that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra) was not at all considered by the subsequent Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. On merits also, we fail to understand how the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Indra Nand Mishra's case can help the appellant in this case. That was a case of officers, where there was a delay of 679 days. In the instant case, the opponents-original petitioners are poor Watchmen-Class-IV servants. How the case of officers can be equated with the case on hand of the present respondents, who are poor Watchmen! There was delay of 679 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Honourable Supreme Court in view of the fact that there was a threat of contempt. That is not the case here. In this case, delay is much more of 1404 days.
7. At the cost of repetition, we may state that, no cause much less sufficient cause is shown in the present case for condoning the delay of 1404 days caused in filing the appeal, therefore, this application must be rejected.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Application fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
9. As the delay is no condoned, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.