2021 (2) TMI 1214 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing application - sufficient cause for delay given or not - Question of parity in the pay-scale of the employees of the Central Tibetan School Administration - HELD THAT - The casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay, is clear. 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. The certificate cases filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately - The irony, emphasized is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens. SLP dismissed as time barred.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing special leave petitions, casual approach of the Union of India in legal matters, imposition of special costs.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing special leave petitions:
The case involved a writ petition filed in 2000 regarding parity in pay-scale for employees of the Central Tibetan School Administration. The Union of India filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order in 2008, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, an application seeking restoration of the LPA was filed in 2016 after a delay of 2590 days, which was dismissed in 2018. The special leave petitions were filed after further delays of 532 days and 6616 days from the original order. The Supreme Court noted the significant delays and criticized the casual manner in which the petitioner approached the court without any valid grounds for condonation of delay.

2. Casual approach of the Union of India in legal matters:
The Supreme Court expressed exasperation at the Union of India's approach in filing the special leave petitions. The Court criticized the Government's legal department for the delay, calling the excuse given for the delay "preposterous." Despite repeated counseling and imposition of costs in previous matters to encourage timely filing of appeals, the Court observed a lack of improvement in the Government's approach towards legal matters. The Court highlighted the need for accountability and emphasized that officers responsible for delays should be held accountable.

3. Imposition of special costs:
Considering the gross negligence and impunity displayed by the Union of India in the matter, the Supreme Court imposed special costs of ?1 lakh to be recovered from the concerned officer(s). The Court directed the amount to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court refused to grant certificates for cases filed merely to obtain a quietus and save officers from consequences, emphasizing the need for accountability and consequences for negligent actions. The Court also directed the Law Secretary and the Ministry of Human Resource Development to ensure compliance and prevent similar matters in the future.