Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Niwas Dahiya And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 May, 2024

Author: G.S. Sandhawalia

Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia

                              Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH




(110)                                             LPA-1138-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Decided on : 07.05.2024

Dr. Ram Niwas
        Ni    Dahiya and another                                 ......Appellant(s)

                                         Versus

State of Haryana and others                                  ......Respondent(s)


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
        ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI


Present:-   Mr. J.S. Sohal, Advocate for
            Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate for the appellant
                                                  appellants.

            Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.

                   *****

G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

Present letters patent appeal has been preferred by respondent

Nos.12 & 14 against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-

CWP

19616-2017 2017 'Dr. Virender Kumar & others V Vs.. State of Haryana &

others' decided on 21.12.2022, 21.12.2022 which was filed by respondent Nos.3 to 6

herein. The appeal is barred by 455 days in filing.

2. The reasons given in the application for condonation ation of delay are

that instead of filing an appeal at an earlier point of time, the appellants

alongwith two other doctors namely Dr. Meenakshi Chopra and Dr. Harvinder

Kaur had approached this Court by filing CWP CWP-4245-2024,, in which

directions were issued issue to decide their representation representation. Eventually their case

was rejected cted on 06.03.2024 and they were reverted to the post of Medical

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB

LPA-1138-2024 2024 (O&M)

Officer.. Apparently, the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Haryana

Labour Department passed the order dated 14.03.2024 reverting the Senior

Medical Officers to the post of Medical Officers while deciding their

representations, since the revised seniority had already been fixed in

compliance of the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned ned Single Judge.

Judge

The appellants then chose to file CWP-7027 CWP 7027-2024 2024 challenging the said order

and never preferred to file any appeal during this period. The learned Single

Judge while noting the contents of the impugned order dated 14.03.2024,

apparently passed passed the second order on 02.04.2024, which reads as under:

under:-

"After After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per his instructions, the petitioners intend to approach the Division Bench in respect of the order passed in CWP P No. 19616 of 2017 dated 21.12.2022, hence the present petition along with CM CM-5238-CWP-2024 2024 may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further. Ordered accordingly."

3. It is in such circumstances, the present appeal has now been filed.

We are puzzled by the manner in which the litigation has been contested. The

appellants being respondent resp Nos.12 & 14 were well aware that in the said writ

petition, the learned Single Judge had issued directions that the seniority list

circulated vide letter dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P P-12)

12) and 10.08.2017

(Annexure P-14) P were not correct and earlier decision dated 25.01.2012

(Annexure P-5) P was correct. The Medical Officers of the Health Department

who had given their option upto 15.07.2007 were placed higher in the seniority

list and ones who had given their option after the cut-off-date were

accordingly put at the tail end. Instead of challenging the said judgment at that

point of time, a circuitous method of filing the representation ntation and filing CWP-

CWP

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB

LPA-1138-2024 2024 (O&M)

4245-2024, was preferred to get the representation decided. Apparently, it was

not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the matter has

already been adjudicated upon and the writ petitioners/ petitioners/appellants appellants herein were

also lso respondents in the earlier litigation. The learned Single Judge chose to

issue directions on 23.02.2024 to decide the representation without taking a

response from the State, which apparently led to the passing of the order dated

06/14.03.2024. It is not that the appellants are illiterate ppersons, but are

Medical Officers and working in the ESI Department. We can only castigate

the appellants appellant regarding the procedure they have resorted to.

4. Similarly respondent Nos.3, 11 and 13 had also attempted to

challenge the said judgment at an earlier stage by filing LPA-807-2024

'Yogesh Lata & others Vs. State of Haryana & others' others',, which was barred

by 424 days. The same was dismissed while noting the fact that they were

private respondents and on account of the tentative seniority list being issued

in January, 2024, it would not give them sufficient cause to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge at the belated stage. The order dated

01.04.2024 .2024 passed in LPA-807-2024 LPA 2024 reads as under:

under:-

"Consideration Consideration in the present appeal, which is barred by 424 days, is to the judgment dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Learned single Judge in CWP CWP-19616-2017 titled Dr.Virender Kumar & others Vs. State of Harya Haryana & others.

2. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay is that the applicants applicants-appellants, appellants, who were the private-

private respondents before the Learned Single Judge, were assured by the official-respondents respondents that the Government of Haryana would file the appeal within the stipulated time against the impugned judgment gment and the appellants need not file any appeal. It is the case of the applicant applicant-appellants appellants that they were kept in dark by the State and the seniority list was prepared

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB

LPA-1138-2024 2024 (O&M)

according to the directions issued by the Learned Single Judge and circulated on 12.01.2024 1.2024 and thereafter, they decided to challenge the judgment as the Medical Officers who were junior to them in the Health Department, Haryana were placed above them in the tentative seniority list.

3. It is in such circumstances an effort has been made to argue on merits that the delay is bona bona-fide fide and neither intentional nor deliberate. It has further been pleaded that had it been known that the official respondents would not file the appeal, the appellants would have filed the same in time as non non-filin filing of the appeal would put them to heavy loss in their service career. The application is supported by affidavit of appellant No.1 who is a Medical Officer in the ESI Department.

4. We are of the considered opinion that for the substantial delay which is well over a period of one year, no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the same and rather the reason given is the death knell of the lack of sufficient cause. It is trite law that there has to be sufficient cause to condone the delay as limitation of 30 days has been provided for filing the appeal. As per the own case of the appellants, they chose to sleep over the issue with the hope that the State would agitate for their grievances which it has not done, being satisfied with the judgment of the Learned arned Single Judge. A finding has been recorded that the impugned seniority lists circulated on 03.05.2017 and 10.08.2017 (Annexures P P-12 & P-14)

14) were not correct and the earlier decision dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-

5) was correct. The Medical Officers of the Health Department had given their option upto 15.07.2007 were placed higher in the seniority list and the ones who had not given their option were accordingly put at the tail end.

5. It is settled principle of law that each and every day's delay may not be explained as has been held by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others' (1987) 2 SCC 107 but it does not mean that the appellants who are holding the post of Medical Officer in the Health Depart Department ment and who are well versed with

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB

LPA-1138-2024 2024 (O&M)

the litigation, can take the benefit of being ignorant and uneducated in any manner and let their vested right slip away and for their indolent behavior, this Court will not exercise its discretion to condone the delay.

6. The four writ petitioners who are now arrayed as private respondents had challenged the seniority of private private-

respondents No.3 to 26 in the writ petition. The appellants herein were arrayed as respondents No.3, 11 & 13. Thus, not only the writ petitioners' s' interests are involved but also large number of private-respondents respondents had also accepted the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. Therefore, at this belated stage, only on account of a tentative seniority list being issued now in January, 2024, it would nnot be prudent to re-open open the seniority issue, keeping in view the act and conduct of the appellants. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in N.Balakrishan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, 1998 AIR (SC) 3222 wherein it has been held as under:

"11. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life life-span span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public po policy.

licy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not no resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB

LPA-1138-2024 2024 (O&M)

7. Reliance can also 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. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 2013 (12) SCC 649,, wherein delay of 2449 days had been condoned by the Divisio Division n Bench of the Calcutta High Court but Hon'ble the Apex Court had set aside the same by holding as under:-

"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, phil philosophy osophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should nott be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonat condonation ion of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there iiss no real failure of justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short durati duration on or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB

LPA-1138-2024 2024 (O&M)

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitu attitude de of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach ach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:

- a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-

non serious matter ter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062839-DB

LPA-1138-2024 2024 (O&M)

8. Keeping in view the above discussion, the application for condonation of delay of 424 days in filing the app appeal eal is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal along with all pending application(s) also stand dismissed."

5. Resultantly,, keeping in view the above background, we find no

plausible reason as such to condone the delay. The litigants are serving as

Medical Officers with the ESI Department and are well versed with the

niceties of service litigation. Resultantly,, the application ion for condonation of

delay of 455 days in filing the appeal as well as main appeal stand dismissed.

All pending civil miscellaneous applications including CM-2744-LPA-2024

for additional evidence also stand disposed of.




                                                   (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
                                                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE


                                                        (LAPITA BANERJI)
07.05.2024
     .2024                                                  JUDGE
Naveen


          Whether speaking/reasoned :             Yes
           Whether Reportable :                   No





                                  8 of 8