Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, RANJAN SHARMA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Sheela Thakur – Respondent
Judgment :
(G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.)
The present Letters Patent Appeal seeks consideration of order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 2420 of 2020, whereby the recovery notices dated 03.06.2020 & 27.05.2020 (Annexure P-1 & P-2, respectively) were set aside, vide which recovery to the tune of Rs. 2,42,300/- was sought to be done by the office of respondent No. 3-appellant No. 3 herein, on the basis of an objection raised by the Office of Senior Accounts Officer, (Annexure P-1) from the writ petitioner, who is widow of a Class-IV employee, who died in harness.
2. The basic principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 (2) were relied upon to grant the relief before the learned Single Judge, wherein recovery to the tune of Rs. 2,42,300/- was made, after almost a year after the death of the original employee-Prem Singh Thakur, who died in the year 2019.
3. The present appeal is barred by 406 days. Reluctantly, CMP(M) No.1796 of 2024 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the present LPA, wherein the delay has been calculated as 313 days.
4. A per
The court emphasized that insufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal leads to dismissal, highlighting accountability in government actions.
An application for condonation of delay must demonstrate plausible reasons; mere bureaucratic delays do not justify extending time limits for appeals.
The State must demonstrate diligence in prosecuting matters and cannot claim a separate period of limitation; a liberal approach to condonation of delay must consider the party's conduct.
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
Sufficient cause must be demonstrated for condonation of delay; bureaucratic inefficiencies do not qualify as valid reasons under law, as legal deadlines apply equally to all parties.
Delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief, and the requirement of a succession certificate for the release of C.M.P.F. dues is justified.
The court condoned a 425-day delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the need for uniformity in applying Supreme Court directives regarding employee increments.
The court condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal to maintain uniformity in applying a Supreme Court order regarding employee increments.
The court condoned the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal to ensure uniformity in the treatment of employees as per the Supreme Court's directives regarding the grant of one increment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
