2013 (8) TMI 1185 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay.
2. Estoppel from challenging the order.
3. Explanation for delay.
4. Respondent's retirement and entitlement.
5. Previous tribunal and court orders.
6. Bona fide actions and negligence.

Summary:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The appellants sought condonation of a 428-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal against an order dated 27th December 2011. The delay was attributed to administrative reasons, including the time taken for obtaining necessary approvals and information from various departments. The appeal was eventually filed on 26th March 2013.

2. Estoppel from Challenging the Order:
The respondent argued that the appellants were estopped from challenging the order as they had previously sought and obtained an extension of time for compliance with the same order. The respondent contended that this action implied acceptance of the order.

3. Explanation for Delay:
The appellants provided a detailed timeline of their actions, including obtaining the certified copy of the order, seeking approvals, and preparing the appeal. However, the court found that the appellants were aware of the limitation period and failed to act promptly, showing negligence and lack of bona fide.

4. Respondent's Retirement and Entitlement:
The respondent retired in June 2012 and was awaiting the benefits of a higher pay-scale effective from 30th January 1990. The respondent had initially approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, which had allowed his appeal, but the State authorities challenged the order, leading to the current proceedings.

5. Previous Tribunal and Court Orders:
The Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal had directed the authorities to grant the higher pay-scale to the respondent. This order was challenged by the State authorities and set aside by a learned Single Judge on jurisdictional grounds. The respondent then filed Special Civil Application No. 12613 of 2011, which was allowed, leading to the current appeal.

6. Bona Fide Actions and Negligence:
The court noted that the appellants, after seeking an extension of time to comply with the order, did not act promptly to file the appeal. The court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory remedy, but lack of bona fide and gross negligence are crucial factors in considering condonation of delay. The court cited the Supreme Court's observations in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., emphasizing that government departments must perform their duties with diligence and cannot expect leniency in matters of delay.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding that the appellants failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, and the connected Civil Application was disposed of as infructuous. There was no order as to costs.