State of Haryana and Others vs Suresh Chander

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is Defendants'' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the Plaintiff-Respondent for mandatory injunction granting interest on the delayed payment on pensionary benefits, has been decreed.

The present appeal has been filed by the Defendant-Appellants after a delay of 108 days after expiry of period of limitation. Along with this appeal, an application i.e. CM No. 11215-C of 2010 has also been filed to condone the aforesaid delay. The only averment for condoning the delay in filing this appeal reads as follows:

That the process in filing the appeal has resulted in delay of 108 days. The delay so caused is neither deliberate nor intentional. Rather the same has been caused due to rush of work and lengthy procedure in filing appeal. In case, the delay is condoned, it would not cause any prejudice to the case of the Respondent in any manner.

Along with this application, the Appellants filed an affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Fatehabad in support of this application wherein again it has been stated that the delay has been caused due to rush of work and lengthy procedure in filing the appeal and the same could not be filed in time due to administrative exigencies.

Vide CM No. 12707-C of 2010, which has been listed today, another affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Fatehabad, in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal has been filed. The said affidavit is taken on record which reads as follows:

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1 That the State of Haryana has filed RSA in this Hon''ble Court. As per the requirement of law for the purpose of limitation, the RSA in question ought to have been filed up to 5.6.2010. However, the same could not be filed in time due to administrative exigencies which follows.

That it is worthwhile to submit here that the decision of the impugned judgment and decree was announced on 6.3.2010 by Sh. R.S. Virk, Ld. District Judge, Fatehabad. The certified copy of judgment and decree of the appellate court was applied on 11.3.2010 to the Incharge, Copying Agency, Court of District Judge, Fatehabad by the o/o District Attorney, Fatehabad and was delivered on 15.3.2010 by the copying agency. Further, it will not out of place to mention here that the o/o District Attorney, Fatehabad has submitted his comments on 6.4.2010 to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Chandigarh that it is a fit case for filing an appeal in the Hon''ble High Court mentioning with that the limitation would be expired on or about 2.6.2010.

That the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana has sent vide letter No. 25841-43/co34(502)2008 dated 12.5.2010 the proposal for filing RSA to the Advocate General, Haryana, Chandigarh who required some certified documents vide PRM No. 19368 dated 25.5.2010 and the same was submitted in the office of Advocate General, Haryana, Chandigarh on 28.5.2010 by the office of the deponent.

4 That it is further submitted that another PRM message was received on 24.7.2010 from the office of Advocate General, Haryana, Chandigarh by the office of the Respondent directing therein that the some documents were again required by the office of Advocate General, Haryana, Chandigarh and same were supplied on 28.7.2010 to the office of Advocate General, Haryana, Chandigarh by the office of the deponent.

That it is further submitted that the Advocate General, Haryana, Chandigarh has required the certified copy of order dated 23.4.2009 passed by ld. Additional, Civil Judge (SD), Tohana which was submitted on 30.8.2010 in the office of Advocate General, Haryana, Chandigarh.

6 That the process in filing the appeal has resulted in delay of-days. The delay so caused is neither deliberate nor intentional. Rather the same has been caused due to rush of work and lengthy procedure in filing appeal. In case, the delay is condoned, it would not cause any prejudice to the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff in any manner.

A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit would shows that the Appellants have tried to explain the delay by giving the different dates on which the matter remained pending before its various officers for processing the filing of the appeal but it is crystal clear from the aforesaid affidavit that in spite of the fact that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was delivered on 15.3.2010 and the District Attorney had submitted his comments on 6.4.2010 and the Legal Remembrancer has sent the proposal for filing of the appeal on 12.5.2010, the Appellants failed to do the needful for filing of the appeal through the Office of the Advocate General, Haryana by providing them the necessary documents etc. and has attributed the delay submitting that rush of work and lengthy process in filing the appeal has caused the delay. This Court has failed to understand as to what is the lengthy process of filing the appeal and how it is different than the procedure which is adopted by an ordinary litigant. If an ordinary litigant can file an appeal why the State which is having vast resources at its command cannot file the appeal within limitation. In fact, the details given in this affidavit shows the callous and negligent attitude of the officials of the Appellants in defending/prosecuting the cases. The rush of work and lengthy process in filing the appeal cannot be held to be a sufficient reason for condoning the delay. Thus, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.

Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred.