HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 3904 of 2008 In Special Appeal No. 104 of 2008 Grenadier Dhirendra Singh ……………..Appellant Versus Major Officer Commanding and others. …….Respondents. Dated: 30.6.2008 Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the respondents. 2. Present appeal has been filed for condonation of delay. We find sufficient reason so as to condone the delay. Delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned. 3. By the present Special Appeal, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 13th May, 2008 and 26.2.2008, whereby the application for condonation of delay has been rejected as well as writ petition was dismissed ex parte. 4. The appellant has filed the writ petition praying to the following effect: “i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duty in Indian Army on the post of grenadier, on which he was working previously. 2 ii) issue any other and further writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii) to allow the writ petition with cost.” 5. The appellant was posted as Grenadier in the Indian Army, from where he went on leave and overstayed. Appellant was not permitted to join his duties due to over staying after the expiry of leave. 6. The writ petition was dismissed on 26.2.2008 in default with the following order: “Case called out twice. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.” 8. Thereafter, for recalling the said order, an application for restoration was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The same was also dismissed on 13.5.2008 stating therein that the reasons for condonation of delay are not satisfactory. Both the applications for recall of the order as well as for condonation of delay were dismissed. 9. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the delay was due to certain reasons and the application for restoration was filed along with delay condonation application. 10. Perused the grounds shown for delay in filing the restoration application. We find sufficient reason to condone 3 the delay in filing the restoration application. Delay is condoned. 11. In the interest of justice, the orders dated 13th May, 2008 as well as 26.2.2008 are recalled. Let the writ petition be restored to its original number and be heard on merits. 12. Special Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 30.6.2008 Avbeet/Rathour