State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors
- SCC(1996) 2 SCC 82
- Neutral1996 INSC 51
- AIRAIR 1996 SC 2882
- SCR[1996] 1 SCR 375
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a government department or instrumentality files an appeal within a short time beyond the prescribed limitation period, and the delay is attributable to consultations between departments or different levels within the same department in processing the matter, such delay may be condoned. The court will take judicial notice of the practical reality that responsibility for delays is often diffuse in government administration, and a pragmatic approach to condonation principles serves the interests of justice by avoiding reward for administrative lethargy and encouraging proper adjudication on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing either in person or through counsel.
Leave granted.
The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the lecturers were appointed on regular basis and satisfied the qualifications prescribed in J & K Medical Education (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1979 and were appointed to time bound promotion by virtue of Government order No. 517-HME of 1987 dated 19.10.1987. The said order indicates that excluding the time during which they had worked against ad hoc appointment, if they had completed 7 years as on March 31, 1987, they would be designated on time bound promotional scheme as Assistant Professors in the scale of Rs. 2350-4050/- w.e.f. 1.4.1987. The respondents had not completed 7 years' regular service as on that date. Yet learned single Judge had given the benefit of the above G.O. There was a delay of about 3 months in filing the appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined to condone the delay on the ground that proper explanation had not been given. We have considered the reasoning of the learned Judges. On the facts and circumstances, we think that the explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal is proper. It is notorious and court would take judicial notice that no one would take responsibility for the delay and in the process of leisurely consultations between different departments or at different levels in the same department the limitation to file the appeal gets barred. Refusal to condone the delay feeds public injustice and a premium for lethargy and encourages mischief. Applying the pragmatic approach, the explanation for the delay needs to be considered and the cause of justice advanced and consideration angulated and accordingly, considered from that perspective the delay gets condoned. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits according to law.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free