Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 548 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Prakash Chandra Joshi

2014-05-06

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
Judgment Heard on I.A. No. 1802/2014, an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. There is delay of 655 days in filing the appeal. 2. It is submitted that the certified copy of the order passed by the Writ Court was received on 18/04/2012. Thereafter the matter was referred for legal opinion to the office of Additional Advocate General. The opinion was given on 28/04/2014 for filing the appeal. However, the OIC did not inform the Government about the opinion and kept the matter with him. Due to the aforesaid act, the OIC was suspended. The charge-sheet has also been issued against him and then the matter was forwarded to the Government. The permission to file the appeal was granted by the Law Department. Thereafter the appeal has been filed. 3. It is further submitted that the similar matter is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 has laid down following principles in regard to considering the facts by the Court in the matter of condonation of delay after considering earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- “15.From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” 5. Looking to the facts of the case, and the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Also heard on merits of the appeal. 7. The dispute in this appeal is in regard to payment of regular salary after classification in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Industrial Employment (standing Orders) Rules 1963 (hereinafter called as 'the Standing Orders'). 8. It is informed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that in the similar matters S.L.P.Nos. 6. Also heard on merits of the appeal. 7. The dispute in this appeal is in regard to payment of regular salary after classification in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Industrial Employment (standing Orders) Rules 1963 (hereinafter called as 'the Standing Orders'). 8. It is informed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that in the similar matters S.L.P.Nos. 8473/2012, 3256/2012, 17998/2010, 17875/2011 & 20025/2011 are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for adjudication. 9. Hence, looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, it is directed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition shall be subject to the order that may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions and upto the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the execution of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition shall remain stayed. 10. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.