IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.13848-C of 2010 in/and Regular Second Appeal No. 4672 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 27, 2011. Nathu Ram. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.13848-C of 2010 in Regular Second Appeal No. 4672 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 14.06.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Hisar dismissing suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. RSA No.4672 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, the appellant-plaintiff was appointed as a Tractor driver in the year 1973 under the charge of Chief Engineer of the respondent- defendant, University. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1987. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 20.06.1997 and directed to maintain his headquarter at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Faridabad. Allegations are that appellant-plaintiff absented without any reason. Several letters were sent to appellant-plaintiff by respondent-defendant and however, he did not join the duty. Charge-sheet was served upon him on account of his absence. He did not even file reply to the charge-sheet. Show cause notice was issued to him. However, the same was received undelivered and notice was served by way of publication and hence, ultimately his office was declared vacant. Plea was also taken that salary for one month and suspension allowance was not paid to him. However, the same was paid during pendency of this suit. Suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. The present appeal has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is delay of 606 days in filing the present appeal. Ground taken for condonation of inordinate delay of 606 days in filing the present appeal is that he was not paid subsistence allowance and that salary for the month of June, 1997 was also withheld. However, 2 RSA No.4672 of 2010 admittedly subsistence allowance and the due salary was already paid to appellant-plaintiff during pendency of the suit. Hence, the same cannot be said to be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay of 606 days in filing the present appeal. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, 3 RSA No.4672 of 2010 Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2)RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996(2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008 (2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” Hence, in view of this legal proposition, court is bestowed with power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the stipulated period. No straight jacket formula can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments held that liberal 4 RSA No.4672 of 2010 approach should be adopted by the Courts in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. However, what to talk of sufficient ground, no ground is made out for condonation of delay of 606 days in filing the present regular second appeal. Hence, in view of these facts, the present application for condonation of delay of 606 days in filing the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the present regular second appeal is also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 5