Regular Second Appeal No.1525 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Misc.No.4573-C of 2009 Regular Second Appeal No.1525 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : May 21, 2009 Union of India and others ... Appellants VERSUS Bhoop Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel – for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- There is delay of 378 days in filing the appeal by the appellant – Union of India. No plausible reasons have been put forward for condoning such a long delay. Mere explanation that the delay took place on account of completing many official formalities cannot be considered sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The State cannot be put at a different stature than that of common man, rather the official machinery being a coterie of legal experts and educated people should have been more vigilant and respectful to the statute of limitation. Even otherwise on merits also, there are concurrent finding regarding the entitlement of the respondent for pension, but the Trial Court dismissed the suit as being time-barred. However, the First Regular Second Appeal No.1525 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] Appellate Court, while forming a view that the loss of pension is a recurring loss and the aggrieved person can approach the Court at any time, held the respondent entitled to disability pension, but confined it to three years and two months, prior to the filing of the suit i.e. 30.7.1990. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and, thus, no interference could be called for. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 21, 2009 `gian'