Union of India vs Gurnam Singh

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—The respondent herein had filed petition for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension on the ground that he had remained imprisoned in Central Jail, Lahore (now in Pakistan). He had made application in this behalf to the State of Punjab duly supported by the affidavits of his co-prisoners. The State of Punjab recommended the case of the respondent for grant of the aforesaid pension. However, the appellant-Union of India, vide its letter dated 11.8.2000, raised an objection that dates of the alleged imprisonment referred to by the respondent in his initial application dated 19.11.1981 and in the subsequent affidavit 22.7.1992 were different. This was the defence in the writ petition also, on the basis of which the writ petition filed by the respondent was contested by the appellant. The learned single Judge noted that the factum of the respondent having been lodged in the jail in Lahore for some period was not disputed and the only dispute was about the period of imprisonment. However, in the opinion of the learned single Judge, it cannot be termed as ''contradictory'', as projected by the appellant. The only direction given by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment is to re-consider the case of the respondent with liberty to hold another fact-finding enquiry at its own level and/or to ascertain the claim of the respondent through diplomatic channels within a period of four months, failing which it would be imperative upon the appellant to accept the fact-finding enquiry report already submitted by the State of Punjab and release the consequential pension to the respondent from the due date. Thus, the direction was to hold the enquiry. It is the submission of the appellant that the enquiry was held, but the Government of Pakistan is not co-operating and has not provided any information. Be as it may, insofar as present appeal is concerned, we do not find any substance therein. It is also filed after a delay of 811 days. There is hardly any justifiable explanation for such an inordinate long delay. It is only when the respondent has filed the contempt petition and the concerned officials in the appellant are facing the contempt proceedings that they have woken up and have challenged the impugned order of the learned single Judge. The Supreme Court in the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, has deprecated such delays on the part of the government bodies or governments, etc. in the following words:-

12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a SLP in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. 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.

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 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. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

We are not inclined to condone the abnormal delay of 811 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed but with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid to the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.