Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Thorugh Sirsa, ... vs Balwan Singh on 29 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058006
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:058006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
223-2
Decided on :29.04.2024
CM-1849-C-2018 in/and
RSA-743-2018 (O&M)
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR, SIRSA,
DISTRICT SIRSA AND ORS . . .Appellants
Versus
BALWAN SINGH . . . Respondent
CM-1854-2018 in/and
RSA-745-2018 (O&M)
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . . .Appellants
Versus
SURJEET KUMAR . . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. B. S. Mittal, Advocate for the respondents.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
CM-1849-C-2018 &
CM-1854-C-2018
The prayer in the present applications is for condonation of
delay of 335 days in filing the RSA-743-2018 & 395 days in filing the
regular second appeal being RSA-745-2018.
The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that the
opinion was given by the District Attorney on 24.08.2017 as to whether the
present appeals are fit to be filed against the order of lower Appellate Court
dated 02.12.2016. Nothing has come on record that as to why, the both
appeals could not still be filed for a period of five months thereafter.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058006
CM-789-C-2024 in/and
RSA-230-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:058006
It may be noticed that even the advise to file appeal has been
given after the limitation period to file the appeals had already extinguished.
Proposition of law with regard to the condonation of delay has already been
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2474-2475
of 2012 titled as Officer of the Chief Post Master General and others
versus Living Media India Ltd and another, decided on 24.02.2012. In
paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it has been held that even the State and its
instrumentalities while filing an application for condonation of delay, have to
show sufficient cause for the delay, before the same can be condoned. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further held that mere explanation that
the delay caused was due to procedural process or was unintentional, without
any supporting evidence, cannot be accepted. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment is as under:-
"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
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058006
CM-789-C-2024 in/and
RSA-230-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:058006
Department for the delay 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."
Recently, again the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while
deciding SLP No.19846 of 2020 titled as Union of India versus Central
Tibetan Schools Admin and others decided on 04.02.2021 has held that the
condonation of delay application filed in a casual manner without cogent or
plausible ground cannot be accepted. Relevant para of the judgment is as
under:-
"6.The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the
petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or
plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than
the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing
which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged
State Governments and public authorities in adopting an
approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and
when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by
the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them.
In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary
No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha
& Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020
decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the
Government/public authorities on account of innate
inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058006
CM-789-C-2024 in/and
RSA-230-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:058006
which came at a time when technology had not advanced and
thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more
prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by
the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master
General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. - (2012) 3
SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the
approach of the Government and public authorities."
A bare perusal of the judgment passed in Living Media India
Ltd' s case (supra) would show that if an appeal is not preferred within the
limitation period, the applicant seeking the condonation of delay has to
explain each day's delay so as to show the court the delay was beyond the
control of the applicant to file the appeal within the limitation period.
In the present appeals, not even a single cause which is
sufficient to condone the delay has been brought on record.
Further, while entertaining an application seeking condonation
of delay so as to entertain the appeals, the right already crystallized in the
favour of other parties are to be considered. In the present appeals, the
respondents have already retired from service after the decision of the lower
Appellate Court. That being the factual position, a right which has already
been crystallized in favour of the respondents cannot be taken away
merely on the asking of the appellants so as to condone the delay of 335
days and 395 days in filing the present appeals respectively.
Further, as per the judgment passed in Central Tibetan Schools
Admin' s case (supra) where the appeal has been filed to complete a mere
formality to save the skin of the officer, the same cannot be entertained. The
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058006
CM-789-C-2024 in/and
RSA-230-2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:058006
present appeal is also fits in the same category. If, the Government has taken
two years time to decide as to whether the appeal is to be preferred or not
and in the meanwhile the respondents have already retired and declining
the benefits which have already been granted by the Courts below and that
too by taking away their crystallized right, will amount to giving premium
on the wrong acts of the appellants-State.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded herein
above especially that the judgments impugned in the present appeals have
already been executed and the respondents have already retired coupled with
the fact that nothing plausible has been brought to the notice of this Court for
condoning the delay, no ground is made out to condone the delay of 335 days
and 395 days in filing the regular second appeals. Accordingly, the present
applications are dismissed.
RSA-743-2018 & RSA-745-2018
Keeping in view the fact that the present appeals are time barred
and the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the present
appeals have been dismissed by this Court herein above, the present appeals
can not be entertained and the same stands dismissed being time barred.
The present regular second appeals stand dismissed being time
barred.
Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed
of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
29.04.2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Riya JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058006
CM-789-C-2024 in/and
RSA-230-2024 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:058006
6 of 6
