HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Vs
KANUBHAI KANTILAL RANA
Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 4659 of 2013 in L.P.A. (Stamp Number) No. 650 of 2013 in Spl. C.A. No. 12613 of 2011 with L.P.A. (Stamp Number) No. 650 of 2013 in Spl. C.A. No. 12613 of 2011 with Civil Appli. (Stamp Number) No. 3559 of 2013 in L.P.A. (Stamp Number) Nos. 650 of 2013.
Decided on: 13-8-2013
Constitution of India, 1953 - Article 226 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Single Judge set aside an order dated 25th September 1992 denying higher pay scale to the respondent with effect from 30th January 1990 and directed the appellants herein to grant the first higher pay scale to the respondent with effect from 30th January 1990 along with other consequential benefits within a period of three months from the receipt of the order - Considering that there was negligence and laches on part of office of Government Pleader in preparing appeal memo/in filing appeal - There was no explanation of inordinate delay in preparing the memorandum of appeal and the civil applications for condonation of delay - Further application for condonation of delay not 'bona fide' on the face of record - Government could not ignore the provisions of period limitation - There was no different limitation period for Government - Routine and mechanical explanation that time was consumed in administrative procedure/in red-tape not sufficient to condone delay - Appeal dismissed.
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 428 days in filing a Letters Patent Appeal preferred against an order dated 27th December, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12613 of 2011 by which the learned Single Judge set aside an order dated 25th September, 1992 denying higher pay-scale to the respondent with effect from 30th January, 1990 and directed the appellants herein to grant the first higher pay-scale to the respondent with effect from 30th January, 1990 along with other consequential benefits within a period of three months from the receipt of the order.
2. 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 29th March, 2012, sought for certain information from the Revenue Department in regard to the communication made between the Finance Department and the Revenue Department. The Revenue Department by its letter dated 10th April, 2012 asked the office of the Collector to file Misc. Civil Application for extension of time for compliance of the order and the office of the Collector by its letter dated 10th April, 2012 instructed the office of the Government Pleader to file a Misc. Civil Application for extension of time. On 12th April, 2012, the Concerned Officer came to file the Misc. Civil Application for extension of time being Misc. Civil Application No. 1594 of 2012 which was filed. on 17th May, 2012 and the same was listed before the learned Single Judge on 27th June, 2012 and on that date, the learned Single Judge granted extension of time. The office of the Collector, by its fax message dated 28th June, 2012 intimated the State Government in regard to the order dated 27th June, 2012 passed in the Misc. Civil Application No. 1594 of 2012 for extension of time.
(d) The State Government, by its communication dated 29th June, 2012 informed the Office of the Collector to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and the office of the Collector by its communication dated 30th June, 2012 intimated the office of the Government Pleader to file Letters Patent Appeal.
(e) The office of the Government Pleader, by its letter dated 13th July, 2012 asked for certain information to file Letters Patent Appeal and also sent some draft and required documents. The office of the Collector, by its communication dated 19th July, 2012 sent the information and documents as required by the office of the Government Pleader.
(f) Thereafter, the officers of the applicant-Department forwarded papers to the office of the Government Pleader and after necessary discussions, the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal was prepared. It appears from the memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal that the appeal was preferred on 26th March, 2013 along with the application for condonation of delay.
3. The above application is opposed by the respondent and the objections taken by the respondent may be summed up thus :
(i) On one hand, the applicants
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.