STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. BALWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenged in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay, has been dismissed. Admittedly, suit filed by the respondent for declaration and mandatory injunction to grant him arrears of his salary alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum for the delayed payment, was decree vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.2002. Petitioners filed appeal against the said judgment on 27.11.2002.

(2.) In the application for condonation of delay, it was pleaded that after pronouncement of judgment, concerned department applied for a certified copy of the said judgment on 20.8.2002, which was obtained on 30.9.2002. Thereafter the matter remained under consideration with the authorities. Office of Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, issued instructions to file appeal vide memo dated 12.11.2002 and thereafter appeal was filed on 27.11.2002.

(3.) The Appellate Court after framing issues, recorded evidence led by both the parties and also discussed the statement of Kulwant Kaur Tandon, who appeared as PW 1 on behalf of the department. As per her statement, she learnt about the decision on 7.8.2002, but has not given any reasonable or sufficient cause to explain the delay. It is also on record that all the offices of the petitioners are located at Chandigarh. There appears to be complete negligence on the part of the concerned department. Even when the department came to know about the decision taken by the Haryana Legal Cell to fill an appeal, , no steps were taken up for filing the same within prescribed period of limitation.