(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The applicants have sought condonation of delay of 504 days in preferring Letters Patent Appeal. The ground sought to be made out, only in the form of averments on oath without any supporting material, is that the applicants were not informed by their learned advocate about the order dated 8.3.2010 which is sought to be challenged in the appeal. It is further averred: "For the first time, somewhere in the month of August 2010, the Panchayat came to know about the impugned order. Immediately on 5.9.2010 the letter was addressed to learned advocate to prepare the appeal. Learned advocate was not provided with the copy of the petition along with annexures and certified copy of the order." It is further stated that the applicant applied for certified copy on 11.10.2010 and upon it being delivered on 13.10.2010, it was sent to learned advocate on 23.11.2010. It was only thereafter that the present application and appeal could be filed on 24th December 2010.
2. Learned counsel, Mr.I.M.Pandya, appearing for the respondent vehemently objected to condonation of such inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the applicants. He submitted that it could hardly be believed that neither advocate of the applicants communicated the order to the applicants nor did the applicants enquired about the order, even while, as stated in affidavit-in-reply, the respondent was issued with an order dated 18.3.1995 appointing him as a full time Peon subject to the result of original petition. Relying upon the affidavit of the respondent, it was further submitted that as the original petitioner, respondent herein, was denied the benefit of appropriate higher pay scale, he had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.601 of 2012, wherein the Court was pleased to issue notice on 30.1.2012. It was on that basis submitted that the present appeal and the application appear to have been prompted by the demand of higher pay scale by the respondent.
3. Learned counsel, Mr.Pandya, relied upon recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by L.rs. v. State of A.P. and Others [AIR 2011 SC 1199] and in Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another [(2012) 3 SCC 563], to submit that it is high 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 the government departments. "The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
4. Having regard to the facts briefly narrated herein above and in absence of reliable and satisfactory explanation about delay occurring between the date of the order of learned Single Judge and indefinite date of the applicants coming to know about it, delay cannot be condoned in view of the ratio of aforesaid judgments. Therefore, the application is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (Mohinder Pal, J.) *malek Top