STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BIMLA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned judgment dated 17.1.2012, benefit of one increment was given to respondent No.1 to bring her at par with her junior. The appeal is barred by limitation of 764 days. To condone delay, following explanation has been given in the application which is also accompanied by an affidavit: -

(2.) IMPUGNED judgment in this case was passed on 17.1.2012. Copy of the same was received in the office of Director School Education, Haryana on 14.3.2012. It is further stated that to file an appeal, matter was referred to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana and vide letter dated 20.3.2012, the case was found not fit to file appeal. Similar opinion was expressed by the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 17.4.2012. Thereafter, it appears that some request was sent on 2.4.2013 to the office of the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana to file appeal. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, Department of Education took a decision to file an appeal on 14.5.2013. Then, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana sent a request to the Advocate General's office on 22.5.2013 to file appeal. There is nothing on record to show that once opinion was given by the Advocate General Haryana and also by the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana not to file an appeal, what were the reasons to take a decision to the contrary and who had taken that decision. No explanation has been given as to at what stage delay was caused.

(3.) IN another case, it was opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that same yard -sticks be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay, filed by the private individuals and the State. In Amalendu Kumar Bera and others vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 52, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -