C.R. No. 6239 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6239 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: January 13, 2009 State of Haryana .. Petitioner v. Shri H.S. Gulati and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.7.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the appeal, was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,59,197/- claiming that the amount of commuted pension and gratuity was illegally withheld by the petitioner without any rhyme or reason. The trial court decreed the suit only to the extent of Rs. 98,075/- on account of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2004. Impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court on 7.1.2005. As there was delay of 75 days in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The learned court below finding that the cause shown by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay was not sufficient, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that on account of impersonal attitude, the files moves in the government set up at snail's speed and delay of 75 days in filing the appeal has occurred. It was for the reason that the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 17.9.2004 was not received in the office of the petitioner, though the limitation to file appeal was to expire on 17.10.2004. It was the process thereafter which C.R. No. 6239 of 2006 [2] included obtaining of opinion from the office of Legal Remembrancer etc. that the appeal could not be filed within the period prescribed and there being sufficient cause, the delay should have been condoned and the appeal filed by the petitioner should have been heard on merits. Meritorious claims should not have been rejected by the court below in such manner. He further submitted that in a number of statutes, separate extra period of limitation has been provided, in case the State is to take any remedy against the order impugned therein. It is only for the reason that in the bureaucratic set up in the State, where number of persons are to deal with particular file with impersonal attitude, it takes longer time in decision making and take action thereon. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that Limitation Act, 1963 does not provide for any such distinction as is sought to be pointed out by the petitioner. There may be provisions in the special statutes providing different period of limitation for appeals etc. by the State, but the same has no relevance in the facts of the present case, where the appeal was barred by 75 days. In fact, there is no merit in the appeal. All what respondent No.1 has been granted is interest on the delayed disbursement of retiral benefits in which no illegality can be pointed out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with an application for condonation of delay filed by the State in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, AIR 1996 SC 1623 observed as under: “When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note- making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow space and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression C.R. No. 6239 of 2006 [3] “sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. xx xx xx Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants.” Same view was expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, which was further followed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 3640 of 2004—State of Haryana and others v. Sham Lal, decided on 29.8.2007 and Civil Revision No. 601 of 2003—State of Punjab and others v. Jagan Nath, decided on 24.9.2007. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the expression “sufficient cause” should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach, rather than technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the government cannot be lost sight of. The court should decide the cases on merits unless they are hopelessly time-barred. The State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual who is always quick in taking decisions and pursuing the remedy. For the reasons mentioned above, I find merit in the present petition. The impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside. The delay of 75 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner is condoned. The learned lower appellate court is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits after hearing the parties. Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the court below on 28.2.2009 for further proceedings. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) 13.1.2009 Judge mk C.R. No. 6239 of 2006 [4]