ISHWAR DEYAL Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in this application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration opposes the condonation of 121 days' delay in filing the present appeal. However, for the reason stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, and primarily keeping in view the fact that the connected regular first appeals have been finally heard and judgment has already been pronounced during the pendency of this appeal, I would consider it appropriate to condone the delay of 121 days in filing the present appeal. The claimants claimed to be unemployed having no source of income and had no regular contact with their counsel. Resultantly, they could not file the present appeal in time. It must also be noticed that Chandigarh Administration has also filed appeal which was barred by time and the delay in filing the said appeal had already been condoned. Following the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as N. Balakrishan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 462, I would condone the delay of 121 days in filing the present appeal, as sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay.

(3.) Consequently, delay of 121 days in filing the appeal is condoned.