- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for appellant on the application, I.A. No. 3682/2012, for condonation of delay in preferring L.P.A. No. 499/2012, by which the appellant -State has challenged the judgment dated 5.12.2008 after a delay of 1512 days. The plea of the State is that the judgment dated 5.12.2008 was challenged by filing review petition, Civil Review No. 77/2010. The said review petition was decided by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 5.10.2012 and thereafter this appeal, L.P.A. No. 499/2012, was filed after a delay of 3 days from the date of expiry of period of limitation from the date of dismissal of the review petition. The contention of the appellant -State that in view of the above fact of dismissal of the review petition on 5.10.2012 and mere delay of 3 days in preferring this appeal to challenge the original judgment dated 5.12.2008 from the date of dismissal of the review petition, the delay may be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the impugned judgment was rendered on 5.12.2008 and the appellants could have challenged the said order instantly but they did not choose to challenge the same for 2 years and 5 months and the writ petitioners filed contempt, because of which the respondents complied with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the State has also taken a decision to make payment of salary, vide order dated 28th February, 2011, copy of which has been placed as annexure to the memo of supplementary affidavit filed by the writ petitioners in Contempt Case No. 211/2009. After taking note of these facts, the review petition was dismissed on 5.10.2012. According to learned counsel for the respondents, there is no reason to condone the delay of 1512 days in a matter where dispute is with respect to the salary of the writ petitioners.
(2.) WE are of the considered opinion that originally the delay could have been condoned on the ground that the review petition has been filed and that was decided and thereafter L.P.A. has been filed. However, in this case, the facts are peculiar. To challenge the order dated 5.12.2008, the review petition was filed after delay of 11/2 years -precisely the impugned order was rendered on 5.12.2008 and review was filed on 26.7.2010. Then the appellants faced contempt, yet they did not choose to challenge the judgment dated 5.12.2008 by filing L.P.A. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned by the appellants cannot be accepted to be sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Hence, this appeal, L.P.A. No. 499/2012, is dismissed. The appellants have also preferred L.P.A. No. 496/2012 to challenge the order dated 5.10.2012 passed in Civil Review No. 77/2010, which has been dismissed. The review petition was filed seeking review of the order dated 5.12.2008. Against original order dated 5.12.2008, the appeal preferred, L.P.A. No. 499/2012, has been dismissed by us; therefore, this appeal, L.P.A. No. 496/2012, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.;