Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1218 (KAR)

N. Ashok v. Branch Manager Pragathi Grameena Bank

2013-10-25

N.K.PATIL, R.B.BUDIHAL

body2013
Judgment : N.K. Patil, J. I.A.No.1/2013 is filed by the appellant for condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the recalling application. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The delay in filing the application has been explained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application stating that, after dismissal of the appeal for noncompliance passed by this Hon'ble Court on 12.4.2013, appellant has not filed the application for recalling. It is not intentional and for the bonafide reason that he is unemployed. Now the respondent has terminated his service from the Bank. After termination it is difficult to lead life. He has two children. He has come from agricultural family at Chitradurga district. After dismissal of the writ appeal for non-compliance of office objections, his counsel informed him to get the documents for scrutiny. However, he was not able to give the documents to be produced his counsel since he is from an agricultural family. He went out to Andhra Pradesh for doing coolie work. Hence, he was unable to meet his counsel. Therefore, he filed application for recalling the order. He has stated that he is redressing his grievance since more than 9 years, as such sought for condonation of delay of four months in filing the recalling application, which is not intentional. 4. After careful perusal of the statements made in paragraph 6 of the accompanying affidavit dated 20.09.2013, it is seen that the delay in filing has not been explained properly nor sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay except making statement in a casual manner. It is duty cast on the appellant to explain each day's delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reasons to inspire the confidence of the Court. 5. This appeal has been filed as early as on 3.7.2012. After expiry of six weeks' time, the matter has been posted before the Registrar (Judicial) for orders on non-compliance of office objections. There are 25 office objections. The Registrar (Judicial) by his order dated 20.11.2012 has granted two weeks' time as a last chance for compliance of office objections. Since the same are not complied with, the matter was again listed before the Court on 20.2.2013. The Court as a last chance granted two more weeks time to comply with office objections. There are 25 office objections. The Registrar (Judicial) by his order dated 20.11.2012 has granted two weeks' time as a last chance for compliance of office objections. Since the same are not complied with, the matter was again listed before the Court on 20.2.2013. The Court as a last chance granted two more weeks time to comply with office objections. Even after two months from 20.2.2013 none of the office objections are complied by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has not verified as to what has happened to the appeal filed by him. There was no other option except to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of office objections. 6. The reasons assigned for dismissal of the writ appeal are well founded. Taking all these into consideration, we are of the considered view that the instant application filed for condonation of delay cannot be allowed, for the reason that even the counsel who represented the appellant has not verified as to how many days delay is there exactly in filing the recalling application. Even in the application he has not mentioned the number of days of delay in filing the recalling application. 7. The casual approach of the appellant in making omnibus statement cannot be accepted. When the party is redressing his grievance he must approach by stating true facts. In view of not approaching the Court with clean hands and not stating true facts, we do not find any bonafide in the explanation given in paragraph 6 of the accompanying affidavit as referred above. Hence, I.A.1/2013 is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.2/2013 filed for recalling the order dated 22.4.2013 is also dismissed as having become infructuous. 8. However, in the interest of justice, we have perused the order impugned dated 29.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36584/2010. 9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material evidence on record, has dismissed the writ petition holding that in spite of giving substantial opportunity to the appellant he has not produced any credible document to show that he has worked as casual labourer with full time work as on 29.7.1998. Further the documents do not satisfy that the appellant petitioner has worked continuously from 1998-2004. Further the documents do not satisfy that the appellant petitioner has worked continuously from 1998-2004. On the other hand, these documents specify that on different dates the service of the appellant was engaged as a casual labourer for certain payment for a particular work on a particular day. 10. In the circumstances, the reasoning of the respondent-Bank in rejecting the claim of the appellant is in accordance with law and strictly as per the regulations of the Bank. When he failed to make out a case by producing credible documents to establish that he has worked continuously from 1998 to 2004, he is not entitled to seek regularization of service under Group 'D' category. 11. On a perusal of the reasoning given by the learned single Judge and the stand taken by the respondent-Bank, we do not find any justification or good ground to consider the appeal on merits. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the instant appeal is dismissed on ground of delay and laches and also on merits.