Point of Law: Delay/Laches/Limitation - Condonation of Delay - sufficient cause - Concept of “reasonableness” while giving clause “sufficient cause” a liberal interpretation. where there exists inordinate delay and same is attributable to party’s inaction and negligence, Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect substantial rights of parties.

JUDGMENT :

Per Magrey; J:

1. This batch of applications has been filed by the applicants/appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the common judgment dated 19th of August, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in 18 connected Writ petitions, with lead case being SWP No.1941/2009, operative portion whereof reads as under:

“For the above stated reasons, this writ petition along with connected CMP(s) is disposed of in the following manner:

The official respondents are directed to consider and appoint the petitioners on the posts of Naib Tehsildars against the vacancies which stand already reserved in terms of the Court Orders in these writ petitions. The appointment orders in this behalf be issued within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served. In case of those petitioners who might have crossed the upper age limit for entering into Government services, it shall be deemed that relaxation is granted in the upper age limit. The petitioners in this fact situation shall be given all the service benefits including the seniority from the date the private respondents have been appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars. The petitioners, however, will not be entitled to any monetary benefit for the period between appointment of private respondents and till the date of their appointments. Besides this the petitioners in SWP Nos. 1941/2009, 1820/2009 and 1709/2009 shall also be extended the benefit of Judgment dated 31st December, 2014 passed in SWP No.487/2009.”

Since all these applications seeking condonation of delay have been filed on the same date, coupled with the fact that they seek condonation of delay in filing appeals against the common judgment, we propose to decide these applications by virtue of this common order. For purpose of appreciating the facts of the case as well as the arguments of the parties, the application bearing CM No. 2986/2020 filed in LPA No.99/2020, wherein objections stand filed by the parties, is relied upon herein this order.

2. The precise case of the applicants/appellants is that, in terms of order No. FC(A) 200 of 2013 dated 8th of October, 2013, a final seniority list of Naib Tehsildars of the State Cadre of Revenue Department, as it stood on 1st of September, 2013, was issued by the official respondents. It is stated that, thereafter, vide order No. FC(A) 158 of 2019 dated 15th of May, 2019, another final seniority list of Naib Tehsildars of State Cadre of the Revenue Department came to be issued, wherein the respondents 3 to 8 herein have been shown over and above the applicants/appellants by declaring them to have been appointed as Naib Tehsildars w.e.f. 20th of November, 2009 on notional basis. It is pleaded that this seniority list was, however, not circulated by the official respondents, as a result whereof the applicants/appellants did not gain any knowledge about the same. On 20th of December, 2019, notification bearing No. FC(A)39/Misc/2019 is stated to have been issued by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, wherein reference of the final seniority list issued vide order dated 15th of May, 2019 (supra) was given. Upon enquiry, the applicants/appellants claim to have found out that the official respondents, in terms of Government Order No. 84-Rev of 2016 dated 30th of June, 2016 and in compliance of the judgment dated 19th of August, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in batch of Writ petitions, have accorded sanction to the appointment of Writ petitioners therein, including respondents 3 to 8 herein, as Naib Tehsildars against available posts in the Revenue Department kept reserved pursuant to orders of the Court. It is stated that the applicants/appellants, upon strenuous efforts, obtained the copy of the said Government order, wherein no retrospective effect to the appointment of the said Writ petitioners, including respondents 3 to 8, has been provided by the Court. It is contended that the applicants/appellants came to know