CWP No.1267 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1267 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.11.2010 **** Harbans Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. MARKFED and Anr. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of 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? **** Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jai Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure P9) whereby his services were terminated as well as the order dated 22.09.2009 (Annexure P11) dismissing his appeal against the above mentioned order being “time- barred”. (2). The petitioner has explained that the delay was caused in filing of the departmental appeal as he was unwell and was advised complete bed-rest from 29.06.2007 to 31.07.2007 due to which there was delay in filing of the appeal. CWP No.1267 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). The factual plea taken by the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents though sufficient opportunities have been given to them to file their reply/affidavit. Otherwise also, it was not a case where the petitioner’s appeal was marred by an unexplained and inordinate delay and in my considered view the appellate authority ought to have taken a lenient view and decided the appeal on merits instead of rejecting it on a hyper-technical grounds. (4). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 22.09.2009 (Annexure P11) is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits in accordance with law, preferably after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 08.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE