C.M.No.11271-CII of 2011 in RSA No.3934 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.11271-CII of 2011 in RSA No.3934 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2011 The State of Haryana and another .....Applicants-Appellants v. Sajjan Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.C.Gupta, Sr.DAG, Haryana. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11271-C-II of 2011 The present regular second appeal has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is delay of 513 days in filing the present appeal. Perusal of affidavit filed by Headmaster, Government High School, Mandhan, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, shows that decree was passed by learned first appellate Court on 23.1.2010. District Attorney was of the opinion that it is a fit case for appeal and sent the same to the office of Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer to Government of Haryana, who also conveyed its approval vide memo dated 9.4.2010 and requested the office of Advocate General, Haryana to file regular second appeal in the case. However, no action was taken thereafter. Office of Advocate General, Haryana, only issued a letter to the office of Headmaster, Government High School, Mandhan, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, and thereafter nothing happened. No cause what to talk of sufficient cause is made out from the averments made in the application for condonation of C.M.No.11271-CII of 2011 in RSA No.3934 of 2011(O&M) -2- inordinate delay of 513 days in filing the present appeal. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is C.M.No.11271-CII of 2011 in RSA No.3934 of 2011(O&M) -3- inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” C.M.No.11271-CII of 2011 in RSA No.3934 of 2011(O&M) -4- Moreover, respondent-plaintiff is a class-IV employee. He was appointed as a Peon in Government High School, Mandhan. Later on his services were regularized. Thereafter impugned notice was issued threatening to de-regularize the services of the plaintiff which was challenged in this suit. The suit was decreed by learned trial Court and the impugned notice dated 18.5.2005 was discarded as illegal, null and void and, however, appellants-State was given an opportunity to give him fresh notice after preparing a seniority list. However, instead of complying with the said order, the appellants filed appeal against the said judgment and decree before learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, which was dismissed and still dis-satisfied, the present regular second appeal has been filed. In view of these facts, no case for condonation of delay of 513 days in filing the appeal is made out. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. RSA No.3934 of 2011 As a consequence thereof, the present regular second appeal is also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 27.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge