- (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.4.2005, vide which, appeal of the petitioners, was dismissed being time barred. It is apparent from the records that the respondent- Shankar Lal filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction wherein he claimed that he was entitled to receive a particular higher pay scale. Suit was filed in the year 1999. After contest, it was decreed on 17.11.2000. It is clear from the records that certified copy of the judgment was received by the petitioners on 14.12.2000. Matter was referred to the Law Department to know as to whether appeal was required to be filed or not and vide letter dated 1.2.2001, it was intimated to the petitioners that it was not a fit case for filing of appeal. As such, at that stage, matter had become final between the parties.
(2.) Thereafter, execution was filed by the respondent on 18.7.2003. Even then no action was taken. Subsequent thereto, some reference was again made to the Law Department on 19.11.2004 and the Law Department, vide letter dated 27.12.2004, intimated to the petitioners that appeal be filed. Even thereafter, no immediate steps were taken, appeal was actually filed on 3.3.2005 and in this process, appeal was barred by 1566 days. This Court feels that a very negligent and indifferent attitude has been adopted by the petitioners in dealing the matter. Explanation given for condonation of delay is totally unsatisfactory. It is true that matters be not decided on technicalities but present is the case where due to lapse on the part of the petitioners, a right has accrued to the respondent, which cannot be taken away at this stage. Appellate Court below has noticed that no extra ordinary ground has been made out on the basis of which delay can be condoned.
(3.) Merely because some enquiry has been initiated against the officer who initially made a report in the year 2001, is no ground to condone the delay. Order passed by the Appellate Court below is perfectly justified.;