9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1990 along with other consequential benefits within a period of three months from the receipt of the order. The case made out by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay may be summed up thus: (a) The judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th December, 2011 and the certified copy of the said order was received on 28th February, 2012 by the department concerned and the delay occurred mainly because of administrative reasons. (b) The office of the Collector thought it fit to file a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the same was forwarded for sanction and approval to the Revenue Department on 23rd January, 2012. The Revenue Department by its letter dated 14th February, 2012 demanded the information of service book and other records of the respondent and the office of the Collector, by its letter dated 2nd March, 2012 forwarded the information to the Revenue Department. (c) The Legal Department provided the sanction to file Misc. Civil Application for extension of time to the Revenue Department by its letter dated 22nd March, 2012. The office of the Collector, by its letter dated 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil Application No. 1594 of 2012 on May 17, 2012 seeking extension of time for compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and the said application was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order passed on 27th June, 2012 granting time of six weeks to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 27th December, 2011. (ii) Therefore, once the applicants have applied for grant of additional time for compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the applicants are estopped from challenging the said order. (iii). There is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of such huge delay of 428 days. (iv) The respondent has retired in June, 2012 and is awaiting for the benefits of higher pay-scale which had accrued to him on 30th January, 1990 as he had completed 9 years of service on that date. (v) The respondent had first approached Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 510 of 1992 for the said prayer which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15th December, 1994 and had directed the authorities to pay the Higher pay-scale to the respondent with effect from 30th January, 1990. (vi) The said order, however, was challenged by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Government Pleader for preferring an application for extension of time, and thus, the Misc. Civil Application No. 1594 of 2012 for extension of time was preferred and the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27th June, 2012, extended the time. (d) In the meanwhile, on 29th June, 2012, a communication was received from the office of the Revenue Department giving approval for preferring Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment and order and vide communication dated 30th June, 2012, intimated the Government Pleader's office to file the appeal. (e) Thereafter, the papers were handed over to the concerned Assistant Government Pleader for preparation of the memorandum of appeal and the concerned Assistant Government Pleader called for certain instructions vide communication dated 13th July, 2012 which were provided by the office of the Collector on 19th July, 2012. The memorandum of appeal as well as Civil Application for stay was prepared by the concerned Assistant Government Pleader, but thereafter, since there was delay in preferring the appeal, the concerned Assistant Government Pleader called for explanation with respect to the delay from the office of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of handing over papers to the learned Advocate for preferring the appeal. 7. From the above facts, it appears that the office of the Government Pleader took about 9 months' time in preparing the Memorandum of Appeal and the Civil Applications for stay and condonation of delay. Peculiarly, in this case, being fully conscious that the appeal had already been barred by limitation and that no further extension of stay of the order impugned would be given as pointed out in the order dated June, 27, 2012, the instructions for filing application for condonation of delay was allegedly taken in the month of January, 2013 which is an instance of negligence and laches of the worst form. 8. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the appellants, after praying for extension of time to comply with the directions of the High Court and after having received benefit of extension of time to comply with the same, can be said to have acted bona fide and without any laches and negligence in preferring the appeal particularly when the application for extension of time of compliance was not filed on the ground that an appeal would be preferred but was filed on the ground tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has to follow some procedure based on the Government Resolution and Rules. 4. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to extend the time for further three months to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court (Coram; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave). 12. After considering the above application being Misc. Civil Application No. 1594 of 2012, the learned Single Judge passed the following order: Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants-original respondents and learned Advocate for the opponent-original petitioner. By this application, the applicants have prayed for extension of 3 month's time to comply with the order dated 27-12-2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12613 of 2011 mainly on the ground of administrative difficulties. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant 6 weeks time from today to comply with the directions contained in order dated 27-12-2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12613 of 2011. It is made clear that no further time will be granted on any ground. 13. On consideration of the above stance taken by the appellants, we are of the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at when the papers were given to the learned Government Pleader's office to prefer appeal, the concerned Assistant Government Pleader was quite aware of the fact that the appeal was already barred by limitation and in such circumstances, we are not satisfied with the explanation that the learned Assistant Government Pleader thought it fit to call for explanation of delay only in the month of January, 2013. 16. Law having prescribed a fixed period of limitation of 30 days for preferring the appeal, the Government cannot ignore the provisions of the period of limitation as it was never the intention of the legislature that there should be a different period of limitation when the Government is the appellant. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506 while considering the case of condonation of delay of 427 days, 1 day less than the period involved in this case: 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
