Supreme Court of India
Chief General Manager, Telecom And Anr. vs G. Mohan Prasad And Ors. on 12 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: JT1999(9)SC375, (2000)IILLJ1477SC, (1999)6SCC67, 1999 AIR SCW 4813, 1999 (6) SCC 67, (1999) 7 SERVLR 310, (1999) 9 JT 375 (SC), (2004) 5 ANDHLD 23, (1999) 4 LAB LN 68, (1999) 10 SUPREME 472, (2000) 2 LABLJ 1477, (2000) 2 SCT 18
Author: U.C. Banerjee
Bench: U.C. Banerjee
JUDGMENT
1. Notice had been issued in this case both on the question of condonation of delay of 195 days as well as on merits indicating that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage itself in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. R. Swaminathan .
2. Today, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that there has been no explanation offered on behalf of the Union of India for condoning the gross delay of 195 days and, therefore, the rights of the respondent accrued pursuant to the judgment of the Tribunal should not be interfered with. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vinod Prakash Tayal 1995 Supp (4) SCC 412 where a delay of 149 days had not been condoned by this Court. The question of condonation of delay is a discretion of the court depending upon the circumstances of each case. If a government servant has been conferred certain pecuniary benefits which he is not otherwise entitled to under the rules, non-interference with such an order is a burden on the exchequer and, in view of the aforesaid three-Judge Bench of this Court, while issuing notice itself, the Court had indicated that the matter would be disposed of at the admission stage.
3. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the delay should be condoned and we, accordingly, condone the delay.
4. When we called upon the learned Counsel for the respondent to address us on merits, the learned Counsel says that he is . handicapped as certain provisions of the rules are not with him. We expect, this prayer could have been made at the very beginning of the hearing of the case and not at the end of the hearing on the question of limitation, but since the counsel says that he is handicapped because the rules are not with him, we do not want to penalise the respondent on that score. We, therefore, adjourn this matter to next Friday, i.e. , 19-3-1999, for hearing on merits.