R. S. A. No. 4081 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4081 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 10, 2011 Haryana State and others .... Appellants Vs. Smt. Surji Devi .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Deepak Girhotra, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 234-C of 2011 : Application is allowed and accompanying affidavit is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No. 12234-C of 2010 : This is application by appellants (State of Haryana and its officers) for condonation of delay of 432 days in filing the appeal. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are dated 19.05.2009. Application for obtaining certified copies thereof was moved on the same day. The copies were prepared on 02.06.2009 and delivery thereof was R. S. A. No. 4081 of 2010 (O&M) 2 taken on 04.06.2009 by the Government Pleader. District Attorney, vide letter dated 09.06.2009, opined that the case was not fit for filing second appeal. However, the department did not agree with the opinion of the District Attorney and sought opinion from Legal Remembrancer (LR) and Secretary to Government. The LR, vide letter dated 26.06.2009, issued instructions to Advocate General, Haryana for filing second appeal. It is alleged that copy of said letter dated 26.06.2009 of the LR was endorsed to District Education Officer (DEO), Rewari instead of being endorsed to District Primary Education Officer (DPEO), Rewari. However, DEO sent the said letter to the DPEO on 03.07.2009, which was received on 30.07.2009 in the office of DPEO. However, the receiving clerk namely Smt. Bimla Devi did not deliver the same to the concerned official. However, DPEO learnt about the matter on 03.02.2010 only, when letter of even date issued by Director, Elementary Education, with copy of letter dated 26.06.2009 of the LR, was received by the DPEO. Thereafter, usual bureaucratic process started. However, the interesting part mentioned in better affidavit for seeking condonation of long delay of 432 days is that the concerned official went to the office of Director, Elementary Education for filing appeal in the High Court from 13.04.2010 to 15.04.2010, but there were holidays in the High Court in those days and therefore, the concerned official could not meet the concerned officers. Thereafter, the High Court R. S. A. No. 4081 of 2010 (O&M) 3 again remained closed for summer vacation, and therefore, the appellants were unable to file the appeal. The documents were subsequently submitted in the office of Advocate General and the appeal was ultimately filed on 23.10.2010. Making these averments, condonation of long delay of 432 days i.e. more than 14 months is sought. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the aforesaid version to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, I am surprised how the Law Officers of Haryana have vetted such an affidavit. Certified copies of judgment and decree of the lower appellate court had been received by the Government Pleader on 04.06.2009 and the appeal was filed on 23.10.2010 i.e. more than 16 months thereafter. This long delay is sought to be explained on the ground that there were holidays in the High Court from 13.04.2010 to 15.04.2010, when the concerned official came to file appeal and could not meet the concerned officers on account of holidays. Even assuming that receipt clerk Bimla Devi did not bring the relevant communication of LR to the notice of DPEO, but the said communication came to the notice of DPEO on 03.02.2010. It is not explained as to why efforts were not made to file the appeal except from 13.04.2010 to 15.04.2010. Even after 15.04.2010, the appeal was not filed R. S. A. No. 4081 of 2010 (O&M) 4 immediately, but another more than six months were taken in filing the appeal. Even taking all the averments made in the so called better affidavit to be at face value, no ground for condonation of such long delay of more than 14 months is made out. The conduct of the concerned officers/officials needs to be strongly deprecated. For their own fault in not filing the appeal in time, summer vacation of four weeks and small break of holidays in April 2010 is being blamed for the delay of 14 months in filing the appeal. If holidays in the High Court from 13.04.2010 to 15.04.2010 were the reason for not filing the appeal in time, there is no explanation as to why immediately thereafter the appeal was not filed. This Court remained closed for summer vacation since 31.05.2010 till 27.06.2010. It is not explained why the appeal was not filed prior to 31.05.2010 or immediately thereafter when the Court opened on 28.06.2010 after summer vacation. The appellants took almost another four months to file the appeal. It is thus manifest that there is no ground, much less sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of 432 days in filing the appeal. If such long delay is condoned on such untenable grounds, as averred in the instant case, then the law of limitation would be completely frustrated. Entire blame for this long delay is sought to be put on the High Court for its vacation, which is completely unjustified. Appellants themselves are guilty of gross and criminal negligence in causing such long delay in filing the R. S. A. No. 4081 of 2010 (O&M) 5 appeal and then taking a patently false and untenable ground to seek condonation of delay. The application is, therefore, dismissed with cost of ₹ 5,000/-, to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. Main Appeal : Since delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is liable to dismissal as time barred. However, even on merits, the appellants have no case. Plaintiff-respondent retired from the service of the appellants-defendants on 30.04.1986. However, his retiral benefits, consequent upon revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996, were not paid and the plaintiff had to approach the trial court by filing the instant suit on 04.06.2004. It appears that thereafter the retiral benefits as per revised pay scales were granted to the plaintiff. Courts below, therefore, granted simple interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment of retiral benefits to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that interest @ 18% per annum is excessive. The contention cannot be accepted. Interest rates till the year 2000 were very high. It was thereafter that the interest rates started falling. Poor retired employee was forced to fight this unnecessary litigation because of complete callous attitude on the part of the defendants, which is also reflected in the averments made for seeking R. S. A. No. 4081 of 2010 (O&M) 6 condonation of long delay in filing the appeal. Even if it be assumed that the interest rate granted by the courts below is a bit excessive, even then the same does not warrant interference in the instant second appeal keeping in view all the circumstances including the long delay suffered by the plaintiff- respondent in getting his retiral benefits. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 10, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE