IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4008 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 8.1.2008 State of Haryana & ors. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana. vs. Dr.(Mrs.) Sunita Garg ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Punit Jain, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is preferred by the State of Haryana and its Authorities in the Health Department against the order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Bhiwani, has been dismissed being barred by limitation. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent-plaintiff has put in appearance. The facts may be noticed briefly. The respondent is serving as a Medical Officer in the Health Department, Government of Haryana. It appears that she remained absent from duty from 4.7.1994 to 23.12.1994. The said period was later on C.R. No.4008 of 2006 -2- treated as an extra-ordinary leave (without pay). While contending that the aforementioned period is also liable to be taken into account towards total period of service for the purpose of grant of ACP, the respondent filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that she was entitled to get the first ACP grade with effect from 1.5.1999 instead of 1.10.1999 as granted to her by the petitioners. The respondent's suit was decreed by the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2004. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred their first appeal on 30.7.2005 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. It may be mentioned here that there was a delay of one year and four months in filing of the above-stated appeal. The learned First Appellate Court, however, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the accompanying appeal also, after observing that “the Government has taken a very casual approach in filing this appeal in quite a delayed manner.” The impugned order itself reveals that the Department had sent the case for opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, who, in turn, is stated to have opined that the case was not fit for appeal. The departmental authorities, however, did not agree to the said opinion and preferred the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, as noticed above. There appears to be some merit in the contention raised by the learned Additional A.G. that where the Govt. authorities are required to follow the prescribed procedure, such like delay can occur and the Courts should be liberal to condone the same so that the lis is decided on merits. In the present case also, it cannot be said that the State Government took a very casual approach in filing the appeal. The very fact that the case was C.R. No.4008 of 2006 -3- sent for legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana well within limitation and subsequently the appeal was also filed without any ordinate delay, amply suggests that the petitioners did not act in a negligent or lack sided manner. There is, however, another aspect of the matter. The solitary relief granted by the learned Civil Court is that instead of 1.5.1999, the first ACP grade has been ordered to be granted to the respondent with effect from 1.10.1999. It is the conceded position that difference of emoluments for the said period is about Rs.12000/- only. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the controversy pertains to a meager amount only, I am of the considered view that no interference in the impugned order dated 18.4.2006 is warranted by this Court. In the event of remand of the case to the Ist Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh on merits, the expenditure likely to be incurred by both the parties would be much more than the monetary benefit gained by the respondent. However, as an abundant precaution, it is directed that neither the petitioner-authorities nor any Civil Court shall treat the subject-case as a valid or binding precedent for counting the period of absence from duty towards total period of satisfactory service required to be rendered for the purpose of grant of ACP grade. With these observations and clarification, I decline to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. January 08, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE