The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ravi Shankar Parasha

Heard on admission.

This writ appeal by the State Government is directed against the order dated 10.8.2010, Annexure A-1, passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed the respondents� Writ Petition No.10275/2010(s).

By order under challenge the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to grant regular pay scale to the respondents which has been granted to similarly situated employees.

Since there is enormous and inordinate delay of 727 days in filing the appeal, I.A.No.12946/2012 has been filed for condonation of delay. We shall, therefore, examine whether there is any �sufficient cause� for the condonation of such a huge delay. It is to be seen that the impugned order dated 10.8.2010 was passed in the presence of Government Advocate and the application for its certified copy was made on 31.8.2012 i.e. after 2 long years. This is apparent from the certified copy of the order dated 10.8.2010 annexed along with the memo of appeal. No explanation whatsoever is given why it was not applied for within a reasonable time.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, is directly on the point. In this case there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation:

�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.

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 bona fide 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.�

In yet another recent decision, the Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, has held that in cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest.

As the admitted position is that application for certified copy of the order was made after two long years. Also, all the dates mentioned in the affidavit clearly show that there is delay at every stage. Though it is stated that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide, the fact remains that from day one the authorities concerned have not evinced diligence in pursuing the matter for filing the present writ appeal by taking appropriate steps. The State has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reason to condone such a huge delay in filing the writ appeal required to be filed in the same High Court building and that too when the order under challenge was passed in the presence of Government Advocate.

Having regard to the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General (supra) and Maniben Devraj Shah (supra) and the fact situation of the present case, we find no sufficient cause to condone the delay.

The application is rejected.

In the result the appeal also stands dismissed.