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.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The present appeal is barred by one year, eleven months and twenty days, as per report of the office. The learned Single Judge decided the issue on 22.11.2022, in CWPOA No.116 of 2019 directing that the writ petitioner-employee be regularized from the date he had completed eight years service against the post of Junior Engineer. On account of the delay we are not proceeding to examine the matter on merits.

2. A perusal of certified copy of judgment wouldgo to show that it was applied on 17.9.2024, almost two years post the decision. The State has averred that the judgment was downloaded from the website on 30.11.2022, and an explanation has sought to be given that record relating to 116 employees of various categories in the position under the Integrated Watershed Management Project [IWMP] and those engaged in Pre-IWMP was to be scanned and therefore, it took considerable time for gathering information and justification is sought till 06.08.2023. It has further been averred that the delay had not been occasioned deliberately or on account of malafide, though, it has been mentioned that the department has initiated disciplinary action against the erring official(s) who have caused delay in gathering, compiling and analyzing the information. No detail of any such action taken against which of the employee(s) has been mentioned to justify the delay of 666 days as held out by the State on account of long process of official channels.

3. After the due application of certified copy on 17.09.2024, the delivery of the same was made on 27.09.2024 and as per the averments made, the matter was then referred to Law Department for seeking opinion for filing LPA on 06.11.2024 and the LPA was filed on12.11.2024.

4. The above sequence of events would go on to show that for a period of almost two years even certified copy was not applied for and there is just a bare averment made that time was taken during 30.11.2022 to 06.08.2023 for gathering the requisite information and calculating financial liabilities, which is stated to be 14 crores and 13 Lakh. The said sequence of events would go on to show that certain liberty which can be given to the State cannot be as such misused to seek condonation when even certified copy was not applied for and therefore, the matter could not have been even processed at Government level. There is nothing on record to show that any legal opinion as such was taken or any action has been taken against the official(s), though a bald averment has been made.

5. The principles have been laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr. reported in (2010) 2 S.C.R. 1172 and Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563. The same reads as under:

“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months.

26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have al