Delhi High Court
Gulzar Singh vs Guru Harkrishan Public School on 1 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4191/2015
% 1st May, 2015
GULZAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate.
Versus
GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order of the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') dated 02.9.2014, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioner/employee as being barred by time. As per the record,
appeal would be barred by time by five months.
2. I am receiving quite a few orders of the Tribunal wherein I note that the
Tribunal is seeming to take a very strict view of the matter with respect to
condonation of delay, and which view ignores the ratio of the judgment of the
W.P.(C) No.4191/2015 Page 1 of 3
Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR
1998 SC 3222, and which holds that unless there is deliberate, malafide or
gross negligence, reasonable delay should be condoned inasmuch as a person
does not benefit by filing a petition with delay. Once no malafides or illegal
motive can be imputed to a person to file a petition with delay, delay should
ordinarily be condoned. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in
the case of N.Balakrishnan (supra) read as under:-
"13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be
some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to
turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does
not smack of mala fides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy the
Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is
reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party
deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the
explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the
opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he
too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a
salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the
part of the applicant the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his
loss."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/School, in view of the
ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan
(supra) could not very seriously dispute the proposition as regards the
entitlement of petitioner to get condonation of delay and the fact that
petitioner derives no benefit, much less has a malafide motive in deliberately
delaying the filing of the appeal. In fact, the facts of the present case show
W.P.(C) No.4191/2015 Page 2 of 3
that, really the petitioner would not have been correctly guided in law of not
filing the appeal in time merely because another appeal against another order
passed by the respondent/School was pending before the Tribunal.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Delay of
approximately five months in filing the appeal before the Delhi School
Tribunal is condoned.
5. Though it need not be stated, at the request of counsel for the
respondent/School it is clarified that, obviously, nothing is observed by this
Court with respect to the merits of the matter.
6. No costs.
7. Parties to appear before the Delhi School Tribunal on 28th May, 2015.
MAY 01, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
