STATE OF JK Vs. ABDUL REHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 368 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 22/3/2017 passed in SWP No. 1882/2013. According to the averments made in the application, it is stated that after the pronouncement of the judgment and order dtd. 22/3/2017, a copy of the same was issued in favour of the counsel on 27/3/2017 and received on 29/3/2017. It is stated that thereafter the matter was taken up with the higher authorities and finally the Administrative Department decided to avail the remedy of filing LPA in the matter. It is stated that opinion of the Law Department was sought and sanction accorded vide communication dtd. 12/4/2018 for filing the Letters Patent Appeal. It is stated that the authorities had been pursuing the matter throughout and that the delay which had occurred by the sanctioning authority was beyond the control of the appellants.

(2.) No reasons are reflected in the application as to how the respondents have proceeded to act between the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment from 29/3/2017 till the date of the receipt of sanction dtd. 12/4/2018. Material dates are missing which could have reflected as to when was the matter referred to the Administrative Department for a decision to file the LPA.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner-respondent herein was to retire on 31/5/2012, but actually retired on 31/5/2013. This error occurred on account of an error in converting the date of birth of the petitioner from Bikrami to the Gregorian Calendar. Needless to say that the petitioner had continued to work during this period. The Writ Court appears to have considered the entire matter and came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not at all responsible for overstaying in employment. Reliance was also placed upon the Apex Court judgment in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 (4) SCC 334. On going through the judgment and impugned order, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one which has been taken by the Writ Court. The Apex Court judgment ratio has been correctly appreciated by the Writ Court.