STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RODMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on I.A.No.4793/2011 an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is reported to be of 402 days. In the application, supported by affidavit of Smt. Shilpa Jain, District Organizer, Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Dewas � Officerin charge of the case, it has been stated that the copy of the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.4172 of 2009 (S) was received on 22.10.2010. On 29.10.2010 the matter was sent to the Government Advocate for opinion. The opinion was received from the office of the Government Advocate on 10.11.2010. The proposal for filing appeal was immediately sent to the State Government on 19.11.2010. The permission was granted by the Law Department on 07.02.2011. It was received by the District Organizer on 18.02.2011. It has been stated that in the meanwhile District Organizer/Officerincharge of the case was on maternity leave from 06.04.2011 to 22.09.2011. In the circumstances, after resuming on duties, she got the Memo of Appeal drafted and filed. In this process the delay has occurred.

(2.) HAVING considered the averments made in the application and the submissions made by the parties, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal has satisfactorily been explained. The delay does not appear to be deliberate and appears to be bonafide. Accordingly the delay is condoned.

(3.) THE learned Deputy Govt. Advocate argued that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in placing reliance on some application dated 30.06.2003 seeking withdrawal of application / notice of voluntary retirement. According to her in fact no such application was filed by the writ petitioner and no such application is even available in the records of the appellants. She submitted that in fact by submitting various applications dated 16.02.2004, 05.08.2004, 17.08.2004 and 19/20.08.2004 (the copies of which are filed along with I.A. No.3197/2012) the writ petitioner made repeated requests for accepting his voluntary retirement and for withdrawing his appeal dated 30.09.2003. According to her in the circumstances, there was no occasion for the appellants to have decided the said appeal dated 30.09.2003. According to the appellants the documents filed along with I.A. No.3197/2012 clearly reveals the conduct of the first Respondent to the effect that for all the time he was pressing for accepting his request for voluntary retirement and for making payments of his dues on account of his application for voluntary retirement. The learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submits that these documents are having material bearing on the fair adjudication of the matter and had these documents been on record, the learned Single Judge would not have passed the orders on the basis of writ petitioner's so called application dated 30.06.2003 and his appeal dated 30.09.2003.