INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CO M.A.NO. C2-3-<3 of200^- r- Appellants: (Non applicant </Nos. 1, 4 & 5) raimants fi i? * y ... \ ,< ^ ^"^S^ n!^-"^^ ^ 'j%i& !tr"'B?T1 " V - .^''S^ £.f ^--^syy .,s€y 1. 2. State ofChhattisgarh, through Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Kaaker Division, Kanker (CG) B. R. Pal, Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, through Executive Engineer, R.E.S Kanker District Kanker (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector,Kanker, (CG) Versus Jaini Bai, Wd/o Govind Ram, Vatti, about 25 years, by Caste 'Gond', R/o village Saranda, Post Office Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur District, Kanker (CG) Shubham, S/o Govind Ram, Ratti, aged about 2 years, R/o village Saranda, Post Office Sarona, Tahsil Narharpiir District, Kanker (CG) (?-g Vwwn&^ •ftnB'l^ ^-1. >JA»IM 6a». 3.^ Siyaram, S/o Tedguram, aged about 46 years, by caste 'Gond' R/o village Saranda, Post Office, Tahsil Narharpur, District, Kanker (CG). i^..l£ ^- Respondents: (Non-applicants <No.2&-3.) ^f,S. Alok Mathur, Contractor, Chikhla Kasa, Millpara, Dalli Rajhara,CG S". 4. Vishau Deo Singh, Main Road, ^' • Dalli Rajhara, Bhawchand Lunia, Gupta, Chowk, Dalli Rajhara (CG) .-./ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3V OF THE WORKMEN'S CQ]S ENSATION ACT, 1923. -U2&_L29,167/^ XI-HC-78 3n^?r^TR-ii»h (WTSTI^Tshtilcft tTTH'PTT ShH{<ih TST •^WM^, BTfly'16, (sfclltfy . M^^'Cj) MG 2-2^ < ^T 200^ Sll^l <4ach (^cft^sl^iT) ?RITWHf?(T3IT^T 22.02.2007 Shri G. D. Vaswani, couu Heard on M.C.P. No. days in fitting this appeal again; the Commissioner for Jagdalpur in C.O.C.No/B/76/W.i of Rs. 2,29,267 to respondents during the course of einployme aged about 27 years engaged u stop dam under construction coUapsed. Learned counsel fer the not questioning its Uability to questioning only the quantuna ol In the application for grounds have been mentioned. 1. ^el for the appeUants. 32$/2007 for condonation of delay of 441 it the order dated 22.9 2005 passed by Workitien's Compensation (Laboiur Coitrt.) p.Fatal/1/2004 awarding compensation |No. 1, 2 & 3/claunants for the death, (it, of one labourer Govind Rain Vatti, digging work on 14.4.2004 when the |in KhaUari canal Saranda suddenly Ull That, the appeUa|nts tabe sanction for c|ha] by any Court ofla^. due to so manl obtaining sanction 2. It is further involved m the mi Hon'ble Court shobld condoning tlie dela^ That, delay in bonafide and noi appeUants pray thbt °hi<il'n''fl-f Ki4(-iTfftei^t<Ri«K ^3lf^1T3tT^T ^ppeUants submitted that the State is FJay compensation in this appeal, but is compensation. |condonation of delay, the foUowing being the State have to jhaUenging- any order passed ijf. The delay so occurred was procedures involved for for filing of appeaL subriiitted that public money is tter and for this reason the take a lenient view for fipiag the instant appeal is deliberate, therefore the the HonTale Court may b( XI-HC-78 MI*1WI St»*ll<ft 3^T '^l<llcl<l, yTfi+f'l?, fs|cllti^< . ^^ C0^o-^^_^ WT 200-^ 3ll^i yach (^a(^s)q<T) 3n^T^iT|^IR; tWT3n^Tsh*1|ch ?:(<ITWCTf?tT3:I1^T ^ tii<<T<-i41-< Hit«-iT?''te[it<Ri<-<;i< ^sri^R'an^T pleased to condoi instant appeal in t1 ae tlie delay in filing the le interest ofjustice. su^port gr((unds The af&davit ffled in speci&caUy mention any of the| mentions that the aforesaid of inforination received from ty true. Learned Government Naealand Vs. Lipok Ao & Otheis of the appUcation also does not grounds mentioned above but simply are true and correct on the basis record of the case and believed to be A|dvocate placed reliance on State of _(2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 752 m particular paragraph 15 which i^ reproducedbelow:- "It is axioinatic that| decisions are taken by officers/agencies prover^iatly at a slow pace and encumbered process of pusliing the files from table to table and ke^ping it on the table for considerable time caus}ng delay - intentional or otherwise — is a routiile. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in t|ie process of their making decision is a common ftature. Therefore, certaiu amount of latitude is ^iot iniperinissible. If the appeals brought by th default no person is should, therefore, be co| in a justice oriented ^ State are lost for such individually affected but what in the ultimate ^nalysis sitffers, is pubhc interest. The expr4ssion "suf&cient cause nsidered with pragniatisni ^pproach rather than the technical detection <kf sufficient cause for explaining every days flelay. The factors wMch ai'e pecuUar to an4 characteristic of the functioning of the gove^ninental conditions would be cognizant to an<| pragmatic approach in| requires adoption of justice oriented process. The court should decide the matters on inerits XI-HC-78 *II^I^TTSht<|cb SST '<ii<<idq, aTfl+l'Ko, Rldlti^< MfV<"c;N-b- ^^ ^ ^; 200^ 311^1 4ach ('i^i^ai^liT) sn^r^iT^icb tiaiT3n^?Tsbt|ich ?T(ITW?rf?(T3n^T °hi<<Fci<fl-< tii>idT^''tet^'<Riwi< '.1 ' ^iSrf^ITgn^T ,*- pri^iciplf unless the case is hope] separate standards to the State vis-a-vis privaj prove strict standards Government at app|i constitute legal ceUs whether any legal decision by the courts adjustment and should take a decision or give settlement. In tlie even4 needed proinpt action oflicer responsible to ffle| be made personafly resp|oi EquaUy, the State footmg' as an individua^. always be quick in takinfe would pursue the reme4y appUcation since he is while the State is ait working through its (essly without merit. No d^ternrine the cause laid by [e litigant could be laid to ()f sufficient cause. The )|ropriate level should to examine the cases ri^iciples are iavolved for ^r whether cases require lauthorize the officers to ak)propriate permission for of decision to file appeal, sfiould be pursued by the |tlie appeal and he should sp|onsible for lapses, if any. be put on the same The individual would the decision whether he by way of an appeal or |a person legally injured impersonal inachinery or servants. cantiot offiders In the case law dted bv appUcation for grant of leave to| 378 (3) Cr.P.C 1973 by the accompaiued by an appUcation that case, it was sliown in det Department till the appeal was to when the copy of the order did the Department put up w^ action before the concerned axb authority forward the file for how the file was found missing |;he learned Government Advocate, an appeal was made ia terms of Section ptate of Nagaland which was duly flar condonation of delay of 57 days. In taU as to how the ffle inoved in tlie jBled. In other words, it was shown as vtas received by the Department, when |th relevant documents for necessary Ithority and when did the concerned cijinsideration to another authority and ^nd could not be traced inspite of best XI-HC-78 +11HMI Sh^llcb s^ •^ww''i, yifly'Ko, Rtdiy^i l^i.^Cc') v\r&- ^2J^°^T 'WT 200'^ 3ii^i iach ('ict!^<s|(,^i.T) sn^rqirR-fich (WSll^Tstilif ?^ITW:Hf?(T3n^T <t>wf<-i41-< tii^dT^'tecit'<F»i+Ai< (^ ^ ^; 3tRrq'3T1^T efforts. It was also shown that i^timately when orders were passed for reconstructing the file, the miss^ng ffle suddenly appeared in the of&ce of authority concerned and thei^eafter acting bonafide the appeal was ffled though after a delay of 57 d|ays. It is not the law that in e ery case where there is delay in filing of appeal by the State, it shoi4d be condoned autoinaticaUy without considering whether there is suf&cient cause for the delay. The State Kke any other litigant is under for the delay by showing when obtained and how and when thi |an obUgation to show sufficient cause tl-ie copy of the impugned order was e file inoved in its legal Departnfents aad at what stages. It is oifly then that it could be taken into consideration that Governinent decisions which are taken by of&cers proverbially at a slow pace encjumbering the process of pushing the ffles from table to table and ke|eping it on the table for considerable time causing delay, intentiona|l or otherwise is a routine. If the appeUant produces material beflore the Court which shows as to how the ffles moved in its legal Depa^ then certain amount of latitudel tment and explains the cause of delay, is not impermissible in favour of the State as an appeUant. To reiter|ate tlie mere fact that the appeltant is the State and procedural delay 4 the rule in government departmental functioning, would not by its 'lf constitute a sufficient cause for condonation ofdelay in every ca^e. In the present case, it i^ dated 22.9.2005 was passed seen that after the iinpugned order by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Lab|3iu- Court) Jagdalpur, no niaterial is placed on record to show as ^o when the copy of tlie award was XI-HC-78 +<1+«TT ShHlch 3^ •<liqid<<, ®Tny'IS,fsldiy^ . ^ ACC^NO- ^^)^ WT 2004- 3ii^i ^aw ('i'alji'^'ff) an^rwfera; ;raT 3TTOT awRi Priya ^RITWtrfN'-W^T State. Even in the appUcatioi »bi<if<-i41-<'HitKiTffteil'<Ri<-ii< •^ /- ^ arf^iTsn^r obtaiaed and how the ffles move(| before the legal Department of the ffled for condonation of delay, no material whatsoever has been jtilaced before this Court to permit certain amount of latitude in faitoiu' of the State Government. It is also pertinent to note that the af^davit of the concerned of&cer filed in support of the appKcation for con(][onation of delay is also whoUy sUeat on tMs point. The huge delay c|f 441 days without there being any details whatsoever of the mover4ent of files in the legal departnient does not deserve to be condoned. In this view of the matterl case law cited liy the learned| distinguishable and do not app]|y to the present case. No ground whatsoever has been inade out condonation of the inordinate delejy of 441 days in fUing this appeal. In this view of the matter, any satisfactory explanation for < delay of 441 days in preferring barred by limitadon. [ the facts and circumstances of the Government Advocate are clearly by the State of Chhattisgarh for ince the appUcation does not disclose ondonation of the huge unexplained delay of 441 days, the appeal is h^pelessly barred by lunitation and the this appeal, does not deserye to be condoned. According-ly, M.C.P. No. 3^5/2007 for condonation of delay is dismissed and as a result ther^of this appeal is also disnussed as Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.