The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State should not be placed at a different footing from private individuals in the matter of condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - CM-1989-LPA-2022

1. Application for placing on record reply filed on behalf of the respondent is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application duly supported by affidavit. Said document is taken on record, subject to just exceptions. Office to append the same at appropriate place.

2. CM stands disposed of.

LPA-1783-2019 (O&M)

3. The present appeal has been filed by the State whereby consideration is to the order dated 03.08.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-14661-2013 which is barred by 418 days.

4. Application for condonation of delay has been opposed by the writ petitioner- respondent by filing reply.

5. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay would go on to show that after the judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2018, copy of the same had been received only on 26.09.2018 in the diary section. The matter was taken to the office of the Advocate General of Punjab and vide letter dated 19.11.2018, it was opined that the case was not fit for filing of an appeal. The Dealing Assistant had put up the file to issue speaking order to give retiral benefits to the writ petitioner from the date of retirement i.e. 31.02.2012 and to fix the pension in the light of the judgment and the opinion of the Advocate General. The file was further put up for legal opinion on 29.11.2018 and the matter was put up for further proceedings with the Director Public Instructions (S.E.) Punjab which was received back on 04.01.2019 with the remarks to further discuss the matter. Relevant file was again sent back to the office of the Advocate General on 11.03.2019 and thereafter, sanction was taken on 09.04.2019 and decision was taken by the Secretary, School Education on 10.10.2019 for filing the appeal, which was filed on 23.10.2019.

6. In the reply filed, it has been averred that on account of contempt petition bearing COCP-2848-2019 and on account of notice of motion which was issued for 30.09.2019, the appeal was filed after a period of one year and therefore, the delay is intentional. It has also been highlighted that legal opinion was given by the Advocate General that it was not a fit case for filing the reply.

7. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation which has been given is contrary to the extent that firstly it was not a fit case for filing an appeal. Thereafter, the matter was dragged right from November, 2018 till 09.04.2019 whereby decision was taken to take sanction and file the appeal. Thereafter, from 09.04.2019, there has been further delay in as much as the appeal was only filed on 23.10.2019, for which also, no apparent explanation has been given.

8. The issue of limitation specially qua private litigants and the State has always been a matter of debate. The Apex Court in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others, 2005 (3) SCR 108, noticed that certain amount of latitude is to be given to the Government and there should be little play in the joints. It was held that State cannot be put to the same footing as individuals as it has an impersonal machinery working through its officers and servants. Counsel for the State has relied upon Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V.Ayisumma, 1996 (10) SCC 634, N.Balakrishan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, 1999 (1) PLR 462 and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan, 2008 (14) SCC 582.

9. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. Vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project & another, (2008) 17 SCC 448, the Apex Court set aside the orders of the Bombay High Court, wherein the inordinate delay of 1724 days had been condoned and held that the Limitation Act does not provide different periods to the Government. It is only in the case of fraud, certain amount of latitude had to be granted and the State could not take advantage of its negligence since it is presumed that it knew its right.

10. Similarly, in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development