- (1.) I.A. No. 7278 of 2013 1. Applicant-appellant being aggrieved of the judgment/order dated 6.9.2011, whereby his writ petition (W.P.[S] No. 3627 of 2005), challenging the order of retiring him compulsorily stands dismissed, has filed the accompanied Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 257 of 2013) wherein there is delay of 661 days, condonation thereof has been prayed for through the instant application which has faced strong opposition by the learned Advocate General.
(2.) Mr.S.N.Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that undoubtedly there is a huge delay in filing the accompanied appeal, but on merits the applicant-appellant has a very strong case, for the reason that the order retiring him compulsorily is not sustainable in the eyes of law on account of a legal flaw in as much as, before passing the order of compulsory retirement, applicant-appellant was not served with enquiry report and the second show cause notice, which is sine qua non and that vital aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Writ Court. Mr. Pathak submitted that in case the aforesaid delay in filing the accompanied appeal is not condoned, it would cause grave prejudice to the applicantappellant, who, otherwise has a very strong case on merits.
(3.) Mr.Pathak fairly states that in the event of the accompanying Letters Patent Appeal being allowed, the applicantappellant is ready and willing to forego considerable part of his back wages, may be to the extent of half of the back wages on account of the aforesaid delay in filing the accompanied appeal. He makes this statement at the bar after taking instructions from the applicant-appellant.;