UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6th Dec., 1982, granting practically all the reliefs that the petitioner had asked for and giving a number of further directions regarding how the petitioner was to be treated in the matter of seniority and promotion. The Union of India and some other respondents have appealed. The first question we have to deal with is the question whether the appeal is barred by time. This is the subject matter of Civil Misc. Nos. 423 and 568 of 1983, which were directed to be heard along with the appeal. The case of the respondents is that the operative order was passed on 28th May, 1982, and hence, the admission order deserves to be recalled. By C.M. No. 568/83, the appellants have prayed that if there is any delay in filing the appeal, the delay should be condoned. The reason for these two applications is that the learned Single Judge had initially passed an order on 28th May, 1982, quashing the impugned order dated 27th Oct., 1973, and also setting aside orders dated 6th April, 1973 and 26th April, 1973, regarding the appointment, seniority and confirmation of the petitioner. Another order dated 24th Aug., 1976, withholding two increments of the petitioner, and departmental proceedings against the petitioner prior to that were quashed. Further, orders dated 5th Oct., 1976 and 7th Dec., 1976, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service were also quashed and the petitioner was held to be entitled to re-instatement. The Court's order stated.

(2.) We also think that no appeal could have been filed against the order merely quashing certain orders passed against the petitioner and directing re-instatement without giving any reasons. It is the 'judgment' that is to be appealed against under the Letters Patent. If there is no 'judgment' then no appeal can be filed.

(3.) Furthermore, Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the period to be excluded for reckoning the period of limitation. Under Sub-section (2) of this Section, the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the decree has to be excluded and under sub-section (3) the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which the decree or order is founded has to be excluded. The appellants could not reasonably have obtained a copy of the judgment before it was pronounced. As it was pronounced on 6th Dec., 1982, the entire period prior to this had necessarily to be excluded. The appeal was filed on 2nd Feb., 1983, 58 days after the judgment was announced. , The Registry has computed the time taken for obtaining the copy as being the period from 7th Dec., 1982, to 5th Jan. 1983, which is 30 days. So, the appeal was filed within 28 days after excluding the time necessary for obtaining a copy of the judgment. The appeal is accordingly within time.