1. Pay-scale parity dispute — Writ petition allowed — Letters Patent Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution — Application for restoration dismissed due to excessive delay. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Union of India – Petitioner
Versus
Central Tibetan Schools Admin. and Others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 19846 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
State Governments and public authorities are bound to honour period of limitation while approaching Supreme Court.
State Governments and public authorities are bound to honour period of limitation while approaching Supreme Court.
Subject
Delay in Filing Appeal - Government Negligence
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal – Limitation – Present special leave petitions have been preferred after delay of 532 days and 6616 days from original order – Mighty Government of India is manned with large legal department having numerous officers and Advocates – Excuse given for delay is preposterous – Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them – This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with direction to recover it from officers responsible for delay – It has not had any salutary effect – Other than lethargy and incompetence of petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record – We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring period of limitation prescribed by Statutes as if Limitation statute does not apply to them – Leeway which was given to Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown – This position is no more prevalent – Objective is to complete a mere formality and save skin of officers who may be in default in following due process or may have done it deliberately – It is appropriate to impose special costs of Rs.1 lakh in this case to be recovered from concerned officer(s), to be deposited with Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks. (Paras 3 to 9)
Result : Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker.
Table of Contents
2. Condonation of delay sought on the ground that the counsel representing the government was elevated as a Judge of the High Court. (Para 2 )
3. Government cannot be treated as an illiterate litigant — Gross negligence regarding limitation periods — Use of certificate cases to shield defaulting officers from accountability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Public authorities cannot ignore statutory limitation periods or seek indulgence based on innate inefficiencies, especially given the availability of modern technology. (Para 6 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed as time-barred — Special costs imposed to be recovered from the concerned officers. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can the government seek condonation of delay based on the elevation of its counsel to a judgeship?
No. The court held that the government, possessing a large legal department, cannot be compared to an illiterate litigant and cannot use such excuses to justify gross delays. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. Are government authorities entitled to special indulgence regarding the statute of limitation?
No. Public authorities must adhere to statutory limitation periods. The court clarified that previous indulgence for innate inefficiencies is no longer prevalent, especially as technology now assists in timely filings. (Para 6 )
8. What is the court's view on certificate cases filed by public authorities?
The court deprecated the practice of filing cases solely to obtain a dismissal from the Supreme Court to provide a quietus and save the skin of defaulting officers. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. The approach of the Union of India in the manner it has filed the present special leave petition exasperates us as all earlier counsel appears to have been thrown in the dustbin!
2. A writ petition was filed in the year 2000, raising a question of parity in the pay-scale of the employees of the Central Tibetan School Administration and that writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of an order dated 07.05.2002. The appellant-Union of India aggrieved by the said order preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.12.2008. The Union of India decided to wake up and preferred an application seeking restoration of the LPA in the year 2016 seeking condonation of delay of 2590 days. This application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.12.2018 by the detailed order. The Division Bench recorded that the only ground which was urged was that the counsel appearing in the matter has been elevated as a Judge of the High Court and the Department was not aware about the “peculiar circumstance.” The High Court thus while referring to the judicial view of this Court, inter-alia in the matter of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, AIR 2010 SC 3043 opined that the appellant cannot be compared to an illiterate litigant.
3. The present special leave petitions have been preferred also after delay of 532 days and 6616 days from the original order.
4. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for some time and must note that the only error which seems to have occurred in the impugned order is of noticing that it is not an illiterate litigant because the manner in which the Government is prosecuting its appeal reflects nothing better! The mighty Government of India is manned with large legal department having numerous officers and Advocates. The excuse given for the delay is, to say the least, preposterous.
5. We have repeatedly being counselling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake!
6. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bheru Lal, SLP (C) Diary No. 9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020 and State of Odisha and Others vs. Sunanda Mahakuda, SLP (C) Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be
