The law of limitation applies rigorously, and government departments must provide satisfactory explanations for delays in legal proceedings; mere procedural inefficiencies are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Javed Iqbal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the application being CM No. 7313/2021 accompanying LPA No. 146/2021, filed by the applicants for seeking condonation of delay of 1485 days in filing the said LPA against the Judgment dated 10.08.2017, passed in SWP No. 2171/2011, in case titled as Hidayat Ali Vs. State and Ors.

2. The facts emerging from the perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner/non-applicant herein filed SWP No. 2171/2011 supra against the respondents/applicants herein before this Court seeking quashment of order dated 21.07.2011, issued by respondent in the petition/applicant 4 herein, besides seeking a direction against the respondents-applicants herein to count his entire period of service towards pay fixation, gratuity and other monetary benefits without any deduction, including the direction for release of pension and other retiral benefits.

The petition supra came to be filed by the petitioner non-applicant herein on the premise that he had previously been removed by the applicants herein from service while working as Head Constable in terms of order dated 29.06.2004, which order came to be assailed by him in SWP No. 1035/2004 before this Court which petition came to be disposed of on 21.12.2006, quashing the order of his removal from service, however, giving a liberty to the applicants herein to start a fresh enquiry from the stage of show cause notice against petitioner/non-applicant herein.

3. Pursuant to the Judgment dated 21.12.2006 supra, the applicants herein re-instated the petitioner/non-applicant herein and came to be served with a show cause notice dated 29.01.2007, to which the non-applicant herein though filed a reply, yet the applicants herein did not conduct any enquiry against the petitioner/non-applicant herein and he in the meantime reached to the age of superannuation on 29.09.2010 and retired in terms of order dated 10.06.2010, whereafter the applicants herein issued order No. 1963 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011 qua the service of the petitioner non-applicant herein and treated the period w.e.f. 29.06.2004 to February, 2007 to be a “leave period” without pay in terms of Regulation 202 J&K CSR 1956.

4. The petitioner/non-applicant herein aggrieved of order dated 08.08.2011 supra preferred SWP No. 2171/2011 supra which came to be allowed by the writ Court in terms of Judgment dated 10th August, 2017 and while setting aside the order dated 08.08.2011 the writ Court directed the respondents/applicants herein to decide the period of the non-applicant herein, for which he remained out of service, in terms of Regulation 108-B J&K CSR 1956, as on duty, and to work out and to pay consequential benefits as shall be due to the petitioner/non-applicant herein.

5. The respondents/applicants herein aggrieved of the Judgment dated 10.08.2017, have preferred the aforesaid time barred LPA wherein condonation of delay is being sought in terms of the instant application.

6. The non-applicant herein has filed objections to the instant application and seeks its dismissal on the grounds urged therein.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Before proceeding to advert to the application in hand the following averments made therein need to be referred hereunder being relevant herein: -

2. That, judgment dated 10.08.2017 was passed by Hon’ble Writ Court in SWP No. 2171/2011, titled Hidayat Ali vs. State and others.

3. That, appellants received letter dated 14.08.2017 from Ld. Sr. AAG, Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar where under it was intimated that Hon’ble Writ Court has passed the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017 and for filing of appeal against the said judgment, necessary sanction be obtained from Govt. of J&K.

4. That, in the process the appellants were required to collect the records from subordinate offices and also to obtain legal advice from Ld. Counsel and sanction from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The examination of the matter and consider