IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6501 of 2007 Date of Decision : September 26, 2008 Surinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on 28.7.2007, while dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (for short ‘Act’) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has been challenged by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Suit for declaration filed by the petitioner that he was entitled to be appointed as Class IV employee on compassionate ground on the retirement of his father, was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur on 27.3.2004. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal along with which he also filed an application under Section 5 of the Act for condonation Civil Revision No. 6501 of 2007 -2- of delay of 1 year 5 months and 9 days in filing the same. It was pleaded in the said application that after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner was about to file an appeal when he was called by the office of respondents No. 2 and 4 to pursue the matter regarding his appointment on compassionate grounds, once again, through proper channel. Accordingly, he sent his representation for consideration, but no action was taken on the same by the said respondents, even after a period of one year. He was kept in the dark after having been swayed by false promises made by respondents No. 2 and 4. Under these circumstances, he could not file the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court within the prescribed period of limitation. Notice of the aforementioned application under Section 5 of the Act was issued by the learned lower appellate Court and the respondents appeared and filed their reply, wherein they denied all the allegations contained in the application. They averred that there was no plausible reason for delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, no case was made out for condonation of delay. As mentioned above, application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Civil Revision No. 6501 of 2007 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same very grounds which were taken by the petitioner while filing the application under Section 5 of the Act before learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur and, accordingly, prayed for acceptance of the revision and setting aside of the impugned order. The petitioner had alleged that when he was going to file an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, he was called by the office of respondents No. 2 and 4, once again, to pursue the matter regarding his appointment on compassionate ground and in pursuance of the same he sent his representation for consideration. However, no copy of any such representation has seen the light of the day. While appearing as his own witness, the petitioner stated in his cross examination that neither he had brought any copy of representation for consideration made by him after the dismissal of the suit nor the same was with him. On the other hand, in their reply to the application under Section 5 of the Act, the respondents had denied that the petitioner was ever called by officials of respondents No. 2 and 4 in their office for pursuing the matter again in proper channel or that he submitted his representation to the department for consideration. Baldev Singh-RW1 deposed before the Court that the petitioner was never called by the office for pursuing his case once again on compassionate ground. Civil Revision No. 6501 of 2007 -4- It was for these very reasons that the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur held that no sufficient ground had been shown for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The unexplained delay was of 1 year 5 months and 9 days. In view of the above, no case is made out for the grant of any interference in the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 26, 2008 JUDGE satish