- (1.) This judgment will dispose of this revision petition as well as connected Civil Revision Nos. 5303 to 5307, all of the year 2005. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 5302 of 2005.
(2.) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated May 21, 2005, vide which appeal of the petitioners was dismissed being time -barred. It is apparent from the records that the respondents filed a suit claiming declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that they were entitled to receive higher pay scale. Suit was filed in the year 1999 and it was decreed on December 18, 2000. Appeal was filed on April 13, 2005. It is apparent from the records that certified copy of the judgment and decree was received on January 3, 2001. A copy thereafter was forwarded to the Law Department on January 3, 2001. Vide letter dated January 12, 2001, it was intimated by the Law Department that the case was not fit for filing any appeal. Similar opinion was given by the Law Department in many other cases and accordingly no appeal was filed. After about four years, first appeal was filed, which was dismissed. It is also apparent from the records that when respondents filed execution, even then no action was taken. Under similar circumstances, while dismissing Civil Revision No. 4186 of 2005, filed by the petitioners in a similar matter, this Court has opined as under: "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. 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."
(3.) In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact, as no substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed.;