Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Hoshiar Singh And Another on 8 November, 2012
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M).doc -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CM No.1281-LPA of 2012 and
LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.11.2012
*****
State of Haryana and others
. . . .Appellants
Versus
Hoshiar Singh and another
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.B.S. Rana, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
There is a delay of 531 days in filing of the appeal, which has been sought to be condoned by moving an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act').
The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, being aggrieved against the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order (Annexure P-15) by which claim of the respondents for promotion to the post of BDPO from the date their juniors were promoted, was rejected and a direction has been issued to consider their case for promotion to the post of BDPO from the date their juniors were promoted and in case found eligible, they be given notional LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M).doc -2- promotion by creating supernumerary posts. The respondents have also been held entitled to all consequential benefits arising from the promotion.
The present appeal has been filed under Clause X of Letters Patent, which find mentioned in Volume V Chapter IX Part B of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, as per which such an appeal can be filed within 30 days of the order in terms of Article 117 of the Act, which reads as under:
Description of Period of Time from appeal Limitation which period begins to run 117 From a decree Thirty The date or order of any days of the High Court to decree or the same order Court The appeal could be filed beyond the period of limitation by filing an application under Section 5 of the Act satisfying the Court about the sufficient cause which caused the delay. The application for condonation of delay filed along with appeal was lacking material particulars, therefore, the appellant filed an additional affidavit on 7.11.2012, in which it is mentioned that the copy of the order dated 15.9.2010 was received from the High Court directly in the office of deponent LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M).doc -3- on 27.10.2010 and after examining the same, the matter was referred to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana on 6.1.2011 for advice as to whether it is a fit case for appeal. Thereafter, the LR, Haryana vide letter dated 18.1.2011 requested the Advocate General, Haryana for sending certified copy of the order dated 15.9.2010 along with his comments, before expiry of limitation, for further necessary action. The certified copy was applied on 14.2.2011, delivered on 5.7.2011 and forwarded to the office of LR, Haryana on 6.7.2011 with an opinion that it is a fit case for appeal. Thereafter, the procedure for filing of appeal has been explained.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record from which we have found that as per Article 117 of the Act, the limitation begins to run from the date of the order for filing of appeal for which 30 days are provided. Admittedly, in this case, neither the department nor the office of Advocate General, Haryana applied for certified copy till 14.2.2011 though certified copy was sent by the High Court on 27.10.2010 directly to the deponent yet the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation and a huge delay of 531 days in filing has been caused.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of "Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr." 2012(2) SCT 269, in which there was a delay of 427 days caused by the instrumentality of LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M).doc -4- the State, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed with the following observations:-
"It is not in dispute that the
person(s) concerned were well
aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M).doc -5- concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M).doc -6- process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
We have also considered the affidavit filed with the appeal as well as the additional affidavit filed later on, explaining the delay of 531 days in filing but could not find LPA No.484 of 2012 (O&M).doc -7- any reason much less sufficient for condoning the same. Hence, the application is hereby dismissed and as a consequence thereof, the appeal is also dismissed.
(A.K. SIKRI) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE NOVEMBER 08, 2012 Vivek