JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) VIDE the impugned judgment dated 17.1.2012, benefit of one increment was given to respondent No.1 to bring her at par with her junior. The appeal is barred by limitation of 764 days. To condone delay, following explanation has been given in the application which is also accompanied by an affidavit: - "2. That the copy of the impugned order dated 17.1.2012 was received in the office of Director School Education, Haryana, Panchkula on 14.3.2012. 3. Initially the matter was forwarded to AG, Haryana to seek his advice to file LPA in this case. As per the advice tendered by Advocate General of Haryana vide AG office Memo No.15/268 -2012 dated 20.3.2012 and Legal Remembrancer to Govt. of Haryana Legal Remembrancer Memo No.25550 dated 17.4.2012, the case was considered not fit for filing LPA. 4. Thereafter, the case was again considered by the department and it was decided that the special request may please be sent to Legal Remembrancer office to file LPA on 2.4.2013. 5. That the Principal Secretary Secondary Education to Govt. Haryana, vide order dated 14.5.2013 decided to file LPA against the order dated 17.1.2012. 6. Then there upon Legal Remembrancer Haryana was requested to issue necessary instructions to A.G. Office for filing LPA against the order dated 17.1.2012. Finally the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana considered that the case is fit for filing LPA and tendered the advice on 22.5.2013."
(2.) IMPUGNED judgment in this case was passed on 17.1.2012. Copy of the same was received in the office of Director School Education, Haryana on 14.3.2012. It is further stated that to file an appeal, matter was referred to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana and vide letter dated 20.3.2012, the case was found not fit to file appeal. Similar opinion was expressed by the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 17.4.2012. Thereafter, it appears that some request was sent on 2.4.2013 to the office of the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana to file appeal. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, Department of Education took a decision to file an appeal on 14.5.2013. Then, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana sent a request to the Advocate General's office on 22.5.2013 to file appeal. There is nothing on record to show that once opinion was given by the Advocate General Haryana and also by the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana not to file an appeal, what were the reasons to take a decision to the contrary and who had taken that decision. No explanation has been given as to at what stage delay was caused. As per averments made in the application, copy of the impugned order was received in the office on 14.3.2012. Opinion not to file appeal was also given by the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana on 17.4.2012. Thereafter, decision was taken and special request was made to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana again to file appeal on 2.4.2013. Even thereafter, more than one year was taken. Where the file remained during this period, who was dealing with the file, nothing has been placed on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set down parameters to condone delay in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 157. After considering large number of precedents, it was held as under: - "23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. 25. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest."
(3.) IN another case, it was opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that same yard -sticks be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay, filed by the private individuals and the State. In Amalendu Kumar Bera and others vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 52, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - "... ... ... There is no dispute that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of 'sufficient cause' for the explaining every days' delay. However, it is equally well settled that the Courts albeit liberally considered the prayer for condonation of delay but in some cases the Court may refuse to condone the delay in as much as the Government is not accepted to keep watch whether the contesting respondent further put the matter in motion. The delay in official business requires its pedantic approach from public justice perspective. In a recent decision in the case of Union of India v. Nirpen Sharma, 2011(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 187 : AIR 2011 SC 1237 the matter came up against the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant -Union of India. The High Court refused to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant -Union of India took their own sweet time to reach the conclusion whether the judgment should be appealed or not. The High Court also expressed its anguish and distress, the way the State conduct the cases regularly in filing the appeal after the same became operational and barred by limitation. " ;