JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—Having granted special leave we have heard counsel on both sides in this appeal right away on all the points involved - of course with their consent and preparedness.

2. The State, the appellant, has urged that the High Court s judgment is wrong and our conclusion rests on a consideration of three obstacles in the way of the appellant which we now proceed to dispose of. The fact necessary to appreciate the controversy are minimal and emerge from the brief, though sufficient, discussion that follows. Brevity is not inconsistent with clarity and 1178 prolixity is not always or ever a virtue.

3. The first fatal objection to the Government s case stated in the order of the High Court, is the ratio in a Full Bench decision in Bikram Das v. The Financial Commr. Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, AIR 1975 Punj and Har 1 (FB), which holds that Rule 3 relating to filing of Letters Patent Appeals is mandatory which in this instance, has not been complied with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in limine. The second obstacle in the way of the appellant is that assuming that Rule 3 is directory-cum-discretionary, an application for condonation of delay in compliance with Rule 3 had been made and the High Court, in division Bench, had declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant. The reluctance in interfering, at the appellate level, with the exercise of the discretion by the High Court is natural and proper. The third point, which is the substantive one on the merits, is as to whether it is just and legal that a Government servant, who has put in 22 long and languishing years of service, should be denied increments and certain other benefits for failure to pass departmental tests for which exemption had been granted to him. The learned single Judge had held that the failure to pass the departmental test should not be a bar to the drawal of the benefits, and since the Letters Patent appeal was not entertained on the procedural ground we have indicated above, that question did not fall for decision.

4. Right away, we may indicate that we are not impressed with the State s contention that the failure to pass the departmental test by the Government servant concerned, after having put in more than two decades of service cannot stand in the way of his enjoying the benefits of increment, etc., particularly because he had been accorded exemption. Passing petty tests after a petrifying length of dull official service is an odd insistence except in important levels of work. That apart, we see no reason to differ from the learned single Judge s finding on this matter. That should put the lid on this appeal but the concern of the State is to set right the law regarding Rule 3 above mentioned.

5. Counsel for the State contends that a large number of appeals will be affected by the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 5, Chap. 2-C by the Full Bench, in Bikram Dass, AIR 1975 Punj and Har 1 (FB). What is pressed before us is that R.3 which requires in terms, that three typed copies of (a) the memorandum of appeal, (b) judgment appealed from, and (c) the paper book which was before the Judge from whose judgment the appeal is preferred, is not mandatory, although the Full Bench has chosen to hold that it is obligatory to comply with them if the appeal is to be entertained at all. We do not agree that this fatal consequence should necessarily follow even if there is a minor deviation in fulfilling the requirements of R.3.

6. It is appropriate at this stage to extract Rule 3 which runs as follows :-

"3. No appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent will be received by the Deputy Registrar unless it is accompanied by three typed copies of the following:-

(a) Memorandum of appeal;

(b) Judgment appealed from, and

(c) Paper book which was before the Judge from whose judgment the appeal is preferred."

7. It is true that, in form, the rule strikes a mandatory note and, in design,