STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHAMLAL MURARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having granted special leave we have heard counsel on both sides in this appeal right away on all the points involved - of course with their consent and preparedness.

(2.) The State, the appellant, has urged that the High Court's judgment is wrong and our conclusion rests on a consideration of three obstacles in the way of the appellant which we now proceed to dispose of. The fact necessary to appreciate the controversy are minimal and emerge from the brief, though sufficient, discussion that follows. Brevity is not inconsistent with clarity and prolixity is not always or ever a virtue.

(3.) The first fatal objection to the Government's case (supra) stated in the order of the High Court, is the ratio in a Full Bench decision in Bikram Das v. The Financial Commr. Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, AIR 1975 Punj and Har 1 (FB), which holds that Rule 3 relating to filing of Letters Patent Appeals is mandatory which in this instance, has not been complied with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in limine. The second obstacle in the way of the appellant is that assuming that Rule 3 is directory-cum-discretionary, an application for condonation of delay in compliance with Rule 3 had been made and the High Court, in division Bench, had declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant. The reluctance in interfering, at the appellate level, with the exercise of the discretion by the High Court is natural and proper. The third point, which is the substantive one on the merits, is as to whether it is just and legal that a Government servant, who has put in 22 long and languishing years of service, should be denied increments and certain other benefits for failure to pass departmental tests for which exemption had been granted to him. The learned single Judge had held that the failure to pass the departmental test should not be a bar to the drawal of the benefits, and since the Letters Patent appeal was not entertained on the procedural ground we have indicated above, that question did not fall for decision.