NAGENDRA KUMAR GHILDIYAL Vs. GARHWAL MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.8.2006. An application for restoration of the appeal and for recalling the order of dismissal was filed on 27.12.2010. Since there was delay in filing the said application, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. In the application for restoration and in the application for condonation of delay, it has been averred that the learned advocate, then engaged by the Appellants, during the relevant time in 2006, was suffering from backache and, accordingly, was frequently moving out of Nainital for obtaining medical assistance. It has been stated in the applications that ultimately, the learned advocate had to undergo two successive operations, both carried out in the year 2010. That appears to be the principle reason why the appeal could not be attended when the same was dismissed for default and why there was delay in filing the application for restoration. The averments made in those two applications make it abundantly clear that the Appellants were not at all vigilant. For more than four years, Appellants did not even bother to know the status of their litigation. It is unbelievable that an advocate practicing in the court, who had undergone surgery only in the year 2010, would not be attentive to the cases in which he has been briefed by his client. We, therefore, see no reason, farless any just reason, for permitting the appeal to be dismissed for default. According to us, no reason farless any sufficient reason, has been furnished in the application for condonation of delay. However, despite that, we are allowing both the said applications upon payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/ -, as a condition precedent to be deposited within two weeks from today with the High Court Legal Service Committee, only on the ground that the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that he would argue the appeal on its merit today.

(2.) WE , accordingly, heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants on the merit of the appeal. In the writ petition, Petitioners contended that they started serving Respondent No. 1 prior to Respondent No. 4 and, accordingly, they were senior to Respondent No. 4 and as such, while the Respondent No. 4 was given the pay scale of Rs. 515 -865 w.e.f. 1.3.1989, there was no just reason not to give the selfsame pay scale to the Petitioners. With the said grievance, Petitioners approached the Court. By the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.