- (1.)This is an application for condonation of delay of about seven months in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned single judge.
(2.)We have heard Mr. H. I. Hussain. learned counsel for the appellants,and perused the cause shown in paragraph 2 of the condonation application. The learned counsel states that the delay of seven months in filing the Letters Patent Appeal has been properly explained. He submits that the cause shown for the delay is reasonable and satisfactory and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the cause shown the delay should be condoned. The learned counsel further states that in the instant case the respondent(writ-petitioner)himself approached this Court after six years of the impugned action. 1 he respondent was appointed temporarily for 89 days in the year 1987 and his services were terminated thereafter in terms of the above order on completion of 89 days. This action of the appellants was challenged by the respondent by filing the writ petitionin the year 1993. after about six years of the impugned action. The learned single judge. without even admitting the writ petition,allowed the writ petition for the failure of the appellant-state to file reply pursuant to notice before admission issued by the court set-aside the order of termination of service and directed the State Government to reemploy the petitioner, regularise him and extend all consequential benefits. lt is this order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition which is subject-matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal The learned counsel submits that though the appellants have set out in details the factors which caused the delay to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of seven months in filing the Letters Patent Appeal and the delay might be condoned on that count alone, the fact that the writ petitioner himself had challenged the action of the State Government after long lapse of six years should also be taken in to account in considering the prayer for condonation of delay Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh V Harish Chander, 1996 AIR(SC) 2173
(3.)We have also heard Mr. Malik Abdul Karim, learned counsel for the respondent who submits that the delay of seven months in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should not be condoned. According to him the cause shown by the appellants is not satisfactory. The learned counsel submits that the State could have filed the appeal in time. He submits that the law of limitation should be applied with all its rigour and the delay of seven months in filing the Letters Patent Appeal in this case should not be condoned. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court P. K. Ramachandran v State of Kerala, 1998 AIR(SC) 2276 in support of tention. He submits that courts have no power to extend the time of limitation on equitable grounds.