IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (230)

CR-8226-2017 Date of decision: - 15.01.2025 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus Tarun Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners alongwith the appeal has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned orders of dismissal/termination from service dated 25.07.2011 and 29.11.2011 were illegal, null and void and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.2014. It is submitted that the petitioners had filed an appeal against the same on 02.01.2015 and that there was a delay of 67 days in filing the said appeal but the 1^st Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal being time barred. It is submitted that alongwith the said appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed, in which, it was stated that the appeal could not be filed in time on account of reasons beyond the control of the appellants and had further stated that the copy of the judgment of the trial Court was forwarded to the Law Directorate for further guidelines and after the higher authorities had taken a conscious decision to file an appeal, the same was filed after engaging the counsel and it was in the said process a delay of 67 days had occurred. It is further submitted that there are substantial issues involved in the main case and in case, the appeal is not heard on merits, then, great prejudice would be caused to the present petitioners. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to the 1^st Appellate Court for deciding the case on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that an order against the respondent-plaintiff was passed on 29.11.2011 vide which his services were illegally terminated and after full contest, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 23.09.2014. It is further submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has also incurred litigation expenses to defend the present petition and he has also been harassed on account of the delay caused. It is stated that in case, the impugned order is to be set aside and the case is to be heard on merits, the petitioners should be burdened with heavy cost so as to compensate the respondent-plaintiff.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book.

5. A perusal of the paper-book would show that the respondent- plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned orders of dismissal/termination from service dated 25.07.2011 and 29.11.2011 were illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. In the said case, substantial issues were involved and after due contest, the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. The relevant portion of the relief granted to the plaintiff is reproduced as under:-

“xxx xxx xxx

20. On the basis of finding of the issues, defendants are directed to hold a fresh enquiry against the plaintiff after serving him with a show cause notice as per law. The fresh enquiry against the plaintiff, if held should be completed within 6 months from the date of order. Further needless to say that in case no fresh enquiry is held, the plaintiff should be entitled to reinstatement in his services alongwith consequential benefits and interest @ 9% per annum on it. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in Open Court (Garima Yadav)

Civ