Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hawa Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056090-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:056090 -DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(112) LPA-920-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 25.04.2024
Hawa Singh ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
30.05.2022 of the Learned Single Judge passed in CWP-16965-2017.
2. The appeal is barred by 643 days. The only ground taken is that
the appellant is a old age ailing person suffering from old age ailments and has
succumbed to passive life-style and could not come out of his house in Kaithal
for impugned the said order. While on a visit to PGI, Chandigarh, he had
approached the counsel and thereafter, the appeal had been filed. Various
judgments have also been quoted in the application including the judgments in
State of W.B. Vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, 1972 AIR 749,
G.Ramegowda Major Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1988 AIR
897, N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 and Ram
Nath Sao @ Ram Sahu & others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & others, AIR 2002
SC 1201.
3. The delay is substantial and a perusal of the paperbook would go
on to show that the appeal was only filed almost 2 years later on 03.04.2024.
The reasoning which has been given is not substantiated by filing any
documentation to that effect that the appellant was ailing or getting treatment
in PGI, Chandigarh. In such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the
present case is a service dispute regarding the right of promotion to the post of
Assistant Superintendent Treasurer and the appellant had retired in the year
2011, we are of the considered opinion that the delay is not liable to be
condoned as no sufficient cause has been made out. It is not proved that the
appellant is suffering in any manner from the alleged disabilities that he could
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056090-DB
(112) LPA-920-2024 (O&M) -2-
not approach the counsel or that he does not have any family member to assist
for the said purpose.
4. The judgment of the Apex Court in Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR 2013 SC 3568 has
held that there has to be no negligence on the part of the appellant and for an
indolent litigant on account of the unsatisfactory explanation given, the Court
would not normally condone the delay. Sufficient cause is an elastic term but
cannot be stretched to the extent counsel for the appellant would want us
which is of 2 years delay. Keeping in view the fact that there is substantial
infrastructural development and communication in the States of Punjab and
Haryana is speedy and it is not that the town of Kaithal is that isolated or far
away that the appellant could not approach his counsel. In such
circumstances, on account of the indolent attitude of the appellant and the
attempt to coin a sufficient cause, the delay is not liable to the condoned.
5. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay of 643 days
in filing the appeal is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the main appeal is also
dismissed along with all pending application(s).
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
25.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
