Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhbir Singh Sodhi And Others on 16 April, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050996-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:050996-DB
(108) LPA-339-2022 (O&M)
Decided on : 16.04.2024
State of Punjab and others .......Appellant(s)
Versus
Sukhbir Singh Sodhi and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. K.S. Kharbanda, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2017 in CWP-21483-
2013. The appeal is barred by 811 days in filing and, accordingly, CM-867-
LPA-2022 for condonation of delay has been filed. It is also a matter of record
that RA-CW-265-2018 had also been filed, which was dismissed on
19.02.2020. Even if we calculate the period from 19.02.2020, the present
appeal was filed only on 28.04.2022.
2. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay would go on
to show that it is an admitted case that the review application was dismissed on
the ground that effect of the order of the learned Single Judge has already been
granted. The dispute as such pertained to the issue of parity of pay-scales
which had been granted to the persons working on the post of Agriculture
Development Officers of the Administrative Wing. The sufficient cause
which is sought to be made out in the application filed was that other similarly
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050996-DB
situated persons filed various writ petitions in the year 2021 to grant the same
benefit and directions were issued to decide their legal notices within a
stipulated period. It was at that point of time the department while considering
the representations came to the conclusion that the duty and responsibilities of
the posts of Technical Assistants as well as Agriculture Development Officer
are different. An averment has been made in paragraph No.6 that an opinion
was then sought from the office of the Advocate General, Punjab regarding the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which had been decided
alongwith other CWP-18663-2013 'Navdeep Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab and others'. Thereafter, the opinion was received that persons working
as Technical Assistants were not entitled for the pay scale of Agriculture
Development Officer. Therefore, the appeal was sought to be filed, which is
now barred by 811 days.
3. The application does not show as and when the opinion was even
given. Thus, there is inordinate delay over a period of two years between the
dismissal of the review application and the filing of the present appeal. If the
delay is to be counted from the initial date of decision of 27.11.2017, it would
amount to around 4 ½ years. It has been time and again held by the Apex
Court though an elastic view is to be taken in condoning the delay but it
cannot be stretched beyond a reasonable period, which the State is now trying
to justify. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation & another, (2010) 5 SCC 459, Esha
Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy & others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 and Office of the Chief Post Master
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050996-DB
General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. And another, (2012) 3
SCC 563. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well
aware or conversant with the issues involved including the
prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of
filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim
that they have a separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with
court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable
explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be
condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a
wing of the Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of
condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or
deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to
be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that
in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take
advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of
impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of
making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern
technologies being used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was
bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation
that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The
government departments are under a special obligation to ensure
that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as
an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law
shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled
for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no
proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050996-DB
except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and
cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay."
4. Keeping in view the fact that in the review it was noticed by the
learned Single Judge that amounts stood already paid to the writ petitioners
and, thus, on account of lack of sufficient cause, we do not feel it is a fit case
to reopen the issue in the peculiar facts and circumstances.
5. Resultantly, application for condonation of delay as well as main
appeal alongwith all pending civil miscellaneous applications stand dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIKAS SURI)
16.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
