***

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) –

This writ petition is preferred by the State, challenging the order dt. 18th July, 2019, passed by the learned erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.551 of 2018.

2. Vide the said order, the Tribunal had allowed the said O.A. and directed the petitioner to regularize services of the respondent on completion of eight years continuous service with all consequential benefits in accordance with law within two months, while restricting the actual financial benefits to three years prior to filing of O.A.

3. Challenging the same, the instant writ petition is preferred on 24.05.2023, without offering any explanation for the delay in filing the same.

4. In para-10 of the writ petition, it is merely stated that there is delay in filing an appeal (sic. writ petition) within prescribed period of limitation; hence delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

5. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, has held that the State cannot claim the benefit of a separate period of limitation for challenging orders adverse to it and in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, the delay cannot be condoned mechanically merely because the petitioner is the State or a wing of the State. It observed as under:-

“26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.”

6. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, wherein the Supreme Court criticized challenges to orders by the State merely to get a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court. It refused to accept the contention of the State that if there is some merit in the case, the delay in approaching the Court by the State can be ignored or condoned. It held as under:

“4. A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only “due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents”. In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to “bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs”.

5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.”

7. Having regard to above reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners/State on the ground of delay and laches which are not explained satisfactorily. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********