The judgment establishes that Government agencies are under a special obligation to ensure diligent performance of duties and that delay of 691 days without plausible justification cannot be permissible for condonation.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. No. 20019/2019 (Condonation of Delay in filing restoration application)

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 691 days in filing the application CM APPL. No. 20017/2019 seeking restoration of the petition which was dismissed in default vide order dated 3rd May, 2017.

2. The applicant/petitioner filed the Writ Petition bearing No. 3613/2004 challenging the order of the Labour Court and vide order dated 15th March, 2007 the matter was listed in the category of Regular Matters. However, the matter was dismissed in default by this Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2017 due to non-appearance of the advocates on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 691 days in filing the application seeking restoration of the petition.

3. The respondent was appointed in Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi (D.D.A. hereinafter) on a temporary post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM hereinafter) for a period of three months (extendable) vide letter bearing No. F.1(1)(D.D.A-App./70-GA-PF-20/5402) dated 29th September, 1970. In 1973, the dispensaries which were run by the D.D.A. were taken over by the petitioner, and the staff working in the said dispensaries was also transferred to the petitioner department, the same day.

4. The non-applicant/respondent was appointed on regular basis vide Office Order No. 640 dated 17th April, 1978 and the terms and conditions laid down by the petitioner were duly accepted by the respondent and the other workers. During the course of work, due to an internal arrangement, the respondent was directed to temporarily look after the work of the Staff Nurse, OPD and thereafter of the physiotherapy department as a time gap arrangement in place of the staff delegated to the said departments.

5. In 1995, the respondent filed a case for promotion/appointment as a `A' grade staff nurse and Physiotherapist before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, vide order dated 16th May, 2003, held that the respondent was not entitled to get appointed as `A' grade staff nurse or a Physiotherapist, but was entitled to salaries for the duration she worked in those capacities.

6. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner filed the W.P. (C) No. 3613 of 2004 and the matter was listed in the category of Regular Matters. This Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2017, dismissed the matter by default, due to non-appearance of the advocates on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 691 days in filing the application seeking restoration of the petition.

7. It is submitted that the present case has been dealt with by different panel advocates engaged by the petitioner at different points of time. Thus, the petitioner department was not aware of the pendency of the present case and only got to know about the dismissal of the case after getting notices from the office of the Executing Court.

8. It is further submitted that the earlier engaged advocate did not return the case files to the petitioner and the same could be retrieved only after sometime, leading to delay in filing the instant applications.

9. Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, the applicant/petitioner seeks that the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the application seeking restoration of the petition to the original stage and number be allowed.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- applicant/respondent vehemently opposed the present applications submitting to the effect that the non-applicant/respondent is a senior citizen who has already retired from the services in December, 2008 and the present applications, if allowed, would cause grave prejudice, irreparable loss and injury to the respondent despite a favorable award granted by the learned Labou