State of Punjab and Others Vs. Manjit Singh Gill and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154524
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2014
AppellantState of Punjab and Others
RespondentManjit Singh Gill and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana, at chandigarh letters patent appeal no.1046 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 4.7.2014 state of punjab and others ..appellants versus manjit singh gill and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jasbir singh. hon'ble mr.justice harinder singh sidhu. present: mr.gaurav garg dhuriwala, deputy advocate general, punjab for the appellants. jasbir singh, judge (oral) application viz. civil misc. no.2387-lpa of 2014 has been filed to condone delay of 1077 days in filing the appeal against order dated 10.5.2011 allowing civil writ petition no.9495 of 2004, filed by the private respondents laying challenge to the orders vide which their gratuity amount was withheld with a view to effect recovery of the amount allegedly paid to them on account of wrong re-fixation of their pay. the learned single judge, taking note of a full bench judgment of this court passed in budh ram and others v. state of haryana and others 2009(3) s.c.t.333, allowed the above writ petition and recovery order was quashed and the appellant was directed to refund the amount, so recovered, within three months from the date of pronouncement of the order. it was not so done. it is necessary to bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.1046 of 2014 (o&m) 2 mention here that ratio of the judgment rendered in budh ram's case (supra) has been upheld by the supreme court in state of punjab and others v. krishan kumar bansal and others (special leave to appeal (civil) no.24607 of 2010, decided on 2.8.2013).payment of gratuity amount was not made as directed by the learned single judge. the appellant slept over the matter and woke up after about three years.in the present application for condonation of delay of 1077 days in filing an appeal, no reason has been given for condonation. it is only mentioned that after pronouncement, judgment was received in the office on 25.7.2011. it is further stated that limitation was going to expire on 25.10.2011. the judgment was sent to the office of advocate general, punjab for legal opinion and vide communication dated 29.7.2011, the office of advocate general intimated that it was not a fit case to file an appeal. the matter was then referred to the government on 12.2.2014 to accord sanction to file an appeal. sanction was received on 6.3.2014 and thereafter this appeal was filed. the facts given above clearly shows lethargic attitude of the concerned authorities in pursuing the matter. no explanation has been given for the intervening period stating as to why such a long time was taken to file an appeal. if not for each day's delay, the appellants are supposed to give reasonable explanation for the delay of each month. the hon'ble supreme court in the case of maniben devraj shah v. municipal corporation of brihan mumbai (2012).supreme court cases 157, has laid down the following principles to condone delay:- “23. what needs to be emphasised is that even though a bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.1046 of 2014 (o&m) 3 liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under section 5 of the limitation act and other similar statutes, the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. 24. what colour the expression sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. if the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. if, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. 25. in cases involving the state and its agencies/instrumentalities, the court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the state and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of cours.by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.1046 of 2014 (o&m) 4 interest.”. it is clearly mandated that for condonation of delay, same yardsticks be applied to the state cases, which are being applied in the case of private litigants. further, in the case of amalendu kumar bera and others v. state of west bengal (2013).supreme court cases 52, it is clearly stated that what is to weigh with the court is the sufficiency of the explanation provided for condonation of delay. if the explanation is plausible, trustworthy and reasonable, delay of many years can be condoned. to the contrary, delay of months may be fatal to the litigant if there is no proper explanation. in the present case, virtually no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of huge delay of 1077 days. no case is made out to cause interference by this court in the present appeal. hence, both civil misc. no.2387-lpa of 2014 for condonation of delay of 1077 days in filing the appeal and letters patent appeal no.1046 of 2014 are dismissed. (jasbir singh) judge (harinder singh sidhu) judge july 4, 2014 “dk”. bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No.1046 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.7.2014 State of Punjab and Others ..Appellants Versus Manjit Singh Gill and Others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh.

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu.

Present: Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants.

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Application viz.

Civil Misc.

No.2387-LPA of 2014 has been filed to condone delay of 1077 days in filing the appeal against order dated 10.5.2011 allowing Civil Writ Petition No.9495 of 2004, filed by the private respondents laying challenge to the orders vide which their gratuity amount was withheld with a view to effect recovery of the amount allegedly paid to them on account of wrong re-fixation of their pay.

The learned Single Judge, taking note of a Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in Budh Ram and Others v.

State of Haryana and Others 2009(3) S.C.T.333, allowed the above writ Petition and recovery order was quashed and the appellant was directed to refund the amount, so recovered, within three months from the date of pronouncement of the order.

It was not so done.

It is necessary to Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.1046 of 2014 (O&M) 2 mention here that ratio of the judgment rendered in Budh Ram's case (supra) has been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v.

Krishan Kumar Bansal and Others (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24607 of 2010, decided on 2.8.2013).Payment of gratuity amount was not made as directed by the learned Single Judge.

The appellant slept over the matter and woke up after about three yeaRs.In the present application for condonation of delay of 1077 days in filing an appeal, no reason has been given for condonation.

It is only mentioned that after pronouncement, judgment was received in the office on 25.7.2011.

It is further stated that limitation was going to expire on 25.10.2011.

The judgment was sent to the office of Advocate General, Punjab for legal opinion and vide communication dated 29.7.2011, the office of Advocate General intimated that it was not a fit case to file an appeal.

The matter was then referred to the Government on 12.2.2014 to accord sanction to file an appeal.

Sanction was received on 6.3.2014 and thereafter this appeal was filed.

The facts given above clearly shows lethargic attitude of the concerned authorities in pursuing the matter.

No explanation has been given for the intervening period stating as to why such a long time was taken to file an appeal.

If not for each day's delay, the appellants are supposed to give reasonable explanation for the delay of each month.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v.

Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012).Supreme Court Cases 157, has laid down the following principles to condone delay:- “23.

What needs to be emphasised is that even though a Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.1046 of 2014 (O&M) 3 liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.

24.

What colour the expression sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation.

If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay.

If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.

25.

In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of couRs.by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.1046 of 2014 (O&M) 4 interest.”

.

It is clearly mandated that for condonation of delay, same yardsticks be applied to the State cases, which are being applied in the case of private litigants.

Further, in the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera and Others v.

State of West Bengal (2013).Supreme Court Cases 52, it is clearly stated that what is to weigh with the Court is the sufficiency of the explanation provided for condonation of delay.

If the explanation is plausible, trustworthy and reasonable, delay of many years can be condoned.

To the contrary, delay of months may be fatal to the litigant if there is no proper explanation.

In the present case, virtually no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of huge delay of 1077 days.

No case is made out to cause interference by this Court in the present appeal.

Hence, both Civil Misc.

No.2387-LPA of 2014 for condonation of delay of 1077 days in filing the appeal and Letters Patent Appeal No.1046 of 2014 are dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge July 4, 2014 “DK”.

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.07.09 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document