RAMBUX SINGH Vs. ZILA PARISHAD HARDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.1.05 with a delay of more than four years. The appellant was a temporary employee in service and the challenge made to the impugned order of termination remain unsuccessful before the learned Single Judge. For explaining the delay in filing the special appeal, absolutely vague and concocted story has been made in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, which even if, is taken on its face value, does not show any bonafide of the appellant in pursuing the case nor gives explanation for such a long delay. According to the averments made in the application supported by an affidavit, the appellant came to know about the order dated 18.1.05 only on 14.9.06, when he contacted his counsel. He applied for certified copy of the order on 15.9.06 which was issued to him on 12.10.06. Despite the order being available to the appellant on 12.10.06, this appeal has been filed only on 23.4.09. THIS long gap of three years has been sought to be explained by making a story that the appellant is a poor person and his only source of income is agriculture and since his crop damaged, he could not arrange money till first week of January 2007 and thereafter he entrusted the file to a counsel for filing the appeal but in the meantime, the counsel died and, therefore, appeal could not be filed. The appellant was also injured in an accident and could not move from the bed and could not get the information about his case. It was only after recovery from injury, he contacted the office of his counsel on 5.1.09, where because of the death of the counsel, the file could not be traced and, therefore, he another counsel to file the appeal. It is unfortunate that the appellant had to face to many mishaps during all this period, if his words are taken to be correct but even the name of the counsel who was having the file has not been mentioned nor it has been mentioned that when the file was given and when the appeal was filed. No medical prescription or the treatment taken or his period of illness has also been shown. Only half-hearted attempt has been made by the appellant to explain the delay. Such a long delay, in fact, has not been explained at all. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently the special appeal also stands dismissed accordingly.