^ / IN TtIE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Appellants: (Non applicant -Nos. 1, 4 & 5) (^ M. A.^o.^Z of 200% »:i)HJBW !M State of Chhattisgarh, through Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Kanker Division, Kanker (CG) B. R. Pal, Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Seri.'ices, through Exeeutive Engineer, R.E.S Kanker District Kanker (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector,Kanker, (CG) Versus ^.sW u??^& 'y ''^'.i^'s*^ /*-^~^^ i! f^«»-..\ Respondents: y^v^kf '^Wh^-s^y^ '^•S.' e-pst-a ~^' :% r-»w-^e".-x?" Re.spondents: ^R'on-applicants No.2&3.) 1. Ramdayal Vatti, S/o Tedguram, aged about 45 years, by Caste 'Gcnd', 2^- Sagnibai Vatti, W/o Ramdayal Vatti, aged about 40 years, Both resident of village Saranda, Post Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker (CG) 3~ Alok Mathur, Contractor, Chikhla Kasa, Millpara, Dalli Rajhara,CG ^' Vishnu Deo Singh, Main Road, Dalli Rajhara, Bhawchand Lunia, Gupta, Chowk, Dalli Rajhaia APPEAL_ UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923. (CLAIMED_VALUED ^V:? T-U"' XI-HC-78- 3TI^T^TR:lNi wr an^T aiifw Wt^Tr sh*1ich 'Svf rf<|qidi|, »Tny'|6,(sKtiyy M A Cc') MO' £2-^ WT 200^ 3)1^1 4a<* ('iclt^al<^T) ?TBT8;R(ri?cT3Tr^T 22.02.2007 Shri G. D. Vaswani, counNel Heard on M.C.P. No. 32^ days in fUing this appeal again^t the Goinmissioner for Workijieri Jagdalpur in C.O.C.No/B/77rtV.(t: of Rs. 2,40,464 to respondents] during the course of employmenf about 20 years engaged in dig^inj dara under construction in Kha]] Learned counsel for the not questioning its Uability to questioning oiily the quantum ol] In the application for grounds have been inentioned. 1. "That, the appeUat take sanction for c| by any Court of lav(i due to so mant obtaiaing sanction p|ay It is further involved in tlie Hon'ble Court condoning the dela^ 3. That, delay in bonafide and no^ appeUants pray pleased to condoi] instant appeal in t}\ thfet qiTqfepfl^ ITTIRft'^'fet^ ^TKn: ^iSrf^lTSn^T for the appeUants. (/2007 for condonation of delay of 441 the order dated 22.9 2005 passed by 's Compensation CLabour Court) p.Fatal/1/2004 awarding compensation No. 1 & 2 fclaiinants for the death, [;, of one labourer Ku. ShashiJkala, aged ^ing work on 14.4.2004 when the stop |ari canal Saranda suddenly coUapsed. ^ippeUants submitted that the State is coinpensation in this appeal, bwt is coinpensation. lcondonation of delay, the following tits being the State have to |iaUenging any order passed r. The delay so occurred was procedures involved for ^or filmg of appeal. subn|iitted that public money is in^tter and for this reason the sliobld take a lenient view for fi(ing the instant appeal is deUberate, therefore the the Hon'ble Court may be [e the delay in filing th( [e interest ofjustice. XI-HC-78 +11+4C11 ShHI* 3^ •^wM'ti, wAu'w, Rcii<iy,< t^^CC^ ^6. Z^-S 4' W[ 200.7 311^1 v^an (^ctl^si^ff) 3?^r?iTf?:iw (CT'an^Tsfttiif ?T(iraRHf?(T3n^T The af&davit ffled in su^port of the application also does not speci&caUy inention any of the ^raW^r wqcff ff te^t (^RSTC ''2--' ^aif^lTSTI^T grounds mentioned above but siinply mendons that the aforesaid groiinds are true and correct on the basis of inforination received fron-i th4 record of the case and believed to be true. Learned Government A(|lvocate placed reliance on State of Nasraland Vs. LipoiAo & OtberSf (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 752 in particular paragraph 19 which i^ "It is axiomatic that officers/agencies proverltiaUy at a slow pace and encumbered process of appeals brought by th^ reproduced below:- decisions are taken by pushing the files from table to table and kee^ing it on the table for considerable time causijig delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routini^. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in tl^e process of their making decision is a common fe|ature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is n|ot unpermissible. If the State are lost for such default no person is i|ndividuaUy affected but what in the ultiniate a|nalysis suffers, is public interest. The expre^sion "sufficient cause should, therefore, be coi^sidered with pragmatism in a justice oriented ajiproach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's 4elay- The factors which are peculiar to and] cbaracteristic of the functioning of tlie gover^iDnental conditions would be coguizant to and| pragmatic approach in The court should decid unless the case is hopel separate standards to de reqiures adoption of justice oriented process. p the matters on merits |essly without merit. No •termine the cause laid by t^~" XI-HC-78 *11*IMI sb*l|cb 3ST ri<i<<id<i, ®Tnyi|<o,fsldlti^< ^__ Ufl-^ (^O- Z.Z'? 4 g ¥FT 200^- Sll^l 4^ch (yit^qq.iT) 3:n^TERrf?:iR; (isiTsn^TaiHicb ?(<ITWfl1^T3n^T ttil^fd^l-i ^ltld)'ifteIil'tRl+dl< -^ ^ ^sri^iran^r the State vis-a-vis privat^ litigant could be laid to prove strict standards c|f sufficient cause. The Government at appijopriate level should constitute legal ceUs to examine the cases whether any legal pri4ciples are involved for decision by the courts o|r whether cases require adjustnient and should take a decision or give aj| settlement. In the eventl ^uthorize the of&cers to ipropriate permission for of decision to file appeal, needed prompt action sljiould be pursued by the officer responsible to file |;he appeal and he should be made personally resp^nsible for lapses, if any. EquaUy, the State cani(ot be put on the same footing as an individua]! The individual would always be quick in taUn^ tlie decision whether he would pursue the remedj application since he is ^ person legaUy injured while the State is anl appUcation for grant of leave to that case, it was shown in det) to when the copy of the order wj ]? by way of an appeal or iinpersonal maclunery worldng through its offic^rs or servants. In the case law cited by t}ie learned Government Advocate, an appeal was made in terms of Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C 1973 by the ^tate of Nagaland which was duly accompanied by an application f(jr condonation of delay of 57 days. In afl as to how the file moved in the Department tffl. the appeal was Iped. In other words, it was shown as »s received by the Department, when did the Department put up wil|h relevant documents for necessaiy action before the concerned au1[hority and when did the concerned authority forward the ffle for cotisideration to another authority and how the file was found inissing s{nd could not be traced inspite ofbest efforts. It was also shown that i4timately when orders were passed for -^^ -. XI-HC-78 *ll*l^fT ShTTT^l 3 r •<ii'i<i<t<<, ®tn*f'i6,Rtdiyy __ ^frCC) M&' ^-^ ^ .>.......-.„.......... ^. 200^ 311^1 4ach ('iaI^q^.ST) sn^r^TR-iicb cpiran^rsbHJcti SRITW'trf^cTSn^T ^fc qiwlwfl-i iiHciT ff te^ <Rit<i< ^STf^TTa.n^i nus^uig shoitld t^e o^ly reconstructing the ffle, the of authority concerned and filed though after a delay of 57 It is not the law that m of appeal by the State, it considering whether there is like any other Utigant is undei| for the delay by showing whei|i obtained and liow and when and at what stages. It is consideration that Governmentl proverbially at a slow pace files froin table to table and kt time causing delay, intention^l appeUant produces inaterial the files moved in its then certain ainount of latitud^ State as an appeUant. To reite^ the State and procedural delay functioning, would not by condonation of delay in every In the present case, it ib dated 22.9.2005 was passed Workmen's Compensation placed on record to show as obtained and how the fUes thefceafter sijjBicient file suddenly appeared in the of&ce acting bonafide the appeal was i^ays. 4very case where there is delay in filmg fce condoned autoinaticaUy without cause for the delay. The State an obligation to show sufficient cause the copy of the impugned order was file moved in its legal Departinents then that it coilld be taken into decisions which are taken by officers en|ciunbering the process of pushing the ^eping it on the table for considerable or otherwise is a routine. If the tlie Court which shows as to how and explains the cause ofdelay, t^ is not impermissible in favour of the •ate the inere fact that the appeUant is js tlie rule in government departmental itielf constitute a sufficient cause for calse. belfore legal Depa|rtment ib seen that after the impugned order ~by the Court of Commissioner for (Lal|>oiir Court) Jagdalpur, no material is |to when the copy of the award was before the legal Department of t^ie mo+ed XI-HC-78 *11*1WI sh+licb 3^ "1|1<IIM<1, »Tfl'M'16, (sltfl'yy . "M^(f0^&- i22S "t ^PT 200^ 3ii^i ^iach ('icl(^G«^8') a.n^r q>Tfew traT31TCTa'*<lch Priya ?RITWHf?(T 311^1 State. Even in the applicatioij material whatsoever has been certain amount of latitude in fa] on this point. The huge delay tii'iifi?i'ifl-i tiiH<iTtT'te^t'<[ai't-(;i< ^S '' ^> 3ri^R'3T)iST filed for condonation of delay, no jplaced before this Court to permit rour of the State Government. It is also pertinent to note that the a^idavit of the concerned officer filed in support of the appUcation for con|donation of delay is also whoUy silent ()f 441 days witliout there being any detafls whatsoever of the moveitient of files in the legal departinent does not deserve to be condoned. In this view of the mattef, tlie facts and circuinstances of the case law cited by the learned| Governinent Advocate are clearly distmguishable and do not appfy to the present case. No ground whatsoever has been raade ouf; by the State of Chhattisgarh for condonation of the inordmate del+y of 441 days in filing this appeal. In tlus view of the matter, any satisfactory esplanation for delay of 441 days, the appeal is h^pelessly barredby limitation and the delay of 441 days in preferring] condoned. Accordingly, M.C.P. No. ^ barred by Umitation. since the appUcation does not disclose sondonadon of the huge unexplained t1iis appea], does not deserye to be 23/2007 for condonation of delay is disnussed and as a result ther^of this appeal is also dismissed as Sd/- DiUp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.