Union Of India & Ors vs Subhash Chandra Das
2021 Latest Caselaw 1490 Cal

19.02.2021
     1
 ns Ct.04
                                    M.A.T. 3210 of 2003
                                          With
                   I.A. CAN 1 of 2003 (Old CAN 9663 of 2003)
                                          With
                    I.A. CAN 2 of 2003 (Old CAN 9664 of 2003)
                                          With
                   I.A. CAN 3 of 2010 (Old CAN 4215 of 2010)

                                        Union of India & ors.
                                                Vs.
                                       Subhash Chandra Das.

              Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, ld. A.S.G.,
              Mr. Rajdeep Biswas                        .... for appellants.

              Mr. Srijib Chakraborty,
              Mr. Sunny Nandy                            .... for respondent.

                          Mr.    Dastoor,      learned        senior    advocate,

             Additional    Solicitor   General,    appears       on    behalf    of

applicants, who wants condonation of reported delay of 265

days in preferring the appeal. He submits, delay on

knowledge of impugned order is 108 days and statements

to that effect have been made in the application.

Impugned order is dated 22nd January, 2003.

We find from impugned order, in spite of several

opportunities granted by first Court to assist regarding its

contention on defence, appellant had not been diligent.

Dismissal order against respondent / writ petitioner was

quashed by issuance of writ of Certiorari. Keeping aside

the delay, we are surprised that this application is being

moved in earnest after so many years. Mr. Chakraborty,

learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent and

submits, the activity is consequent to his client having

moved Court in contempt. The direction was for respondent

to be paid arrear salary treating him as on service from day

of Patna High Court judgment (20 th December, 1991).

Respondent was allowed to join duty only in year 2010.

Mr. Dastoor submits, his client has been diligent. There

were no laches on part of applicant as no knowledge was

had of the writ petition filed.

The only consideration for even looking into the

application would be to see whether there is substance in

the appeal, on a controversy to be adjudicated. Prima

facie, we find conduct of applicants gives impression there

is no such substance. We shall, however, consider further,

in event arrear salaries for ten months commencing

February, 1991 to November, 1991, being approximately

equal to the period of delay, is paid as costs on a condition

precedent for being satisfied on bona fide of applicant. We

will then proceed to consider whether there is controversy,

meriting condonation of delay following judgment of

Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst.

Katiji & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353.

List on 12th March, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)