IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1116 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 05, 2011 Satbir and others ….Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others …. Respondents CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for respondent No.4. 1. To be referred to the Report or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a part of the judgment dated 24.7.2003 passed by learned single Judge declining the relief of back wages. The learned Single Judge has restricted the relief to count their past service for the retiral benefits and seniority only. Alongwith the appeal, an application, seeking condonation of huge delay of 2460 days, has also been filed. The application has been opposed by filing reply by Municipal Council, Rohtak-respondent No.4. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the only L.P.A. No.1116 of 2010 -2- reason given is that the applicant-appellants were not aware of the legal consequences whereby delay of 2460 days has occurred, which was unintentional. That is the whole explanation given for the delay. In reply to the application, it has been stated that such explanation cannot constitute sufficient basis for condoning the delay and the averment is absolutely vague. The non-applicant/respondent No.4 has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of P. K. Ramachandran V. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 SC 2276. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that the colossal delay of 2460 days cannot be condoned, particularly when the delay has not been sufficiently explained. Once the applicants-appellants have gone before the learned single Judge, demonstrating that they were fully aware of the legal consequences. It cannot, thus, be argued that delay has been caused on account of ignorance of law. In any case, ignorance of law alone is not an excuse for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, being time barred. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 05, 2011 JUDGE satish