HC flags institutional lethargy in appeal process, admonishes Punjab for 1022-day delay

Flagging institutional lethargy in pursuing appeals, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished Punjab for the laid-back and “neglected” manner in which its administrative authorities handled the decision to challenge a Single Judge’s order in a service matter.

The court also refused to condone a delay of 1022 days in filing the appeal by the State, while making it clear that the authorities’ conduct in the matter did not inspire confidence and failed to meet the threshold of “sufficient cause”.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Alok Jain noted in its order that the State had a right to appeal, but the file remained pending for nearly three years without justification. “The appellants have a right to challenge the order passed by the Single Judge by way of an appeal, but we find that the manner in which the file kept pending before the administrative authorities seeking approval for filing the LPA, is highly deprecated,” the Bench asserted.

The court added that the delay of 1022 days in filing the appeal clearly spoke of administrative authorities’ conduct and “the matter for filing the appeal was processed in a very casual and neglected manner.”

The court observed the only reason cited for the delay was the time taken by the administrative machinery to seek approval for filing the Letters Patent Appeal. “Initially, the authorities had processed the case of the respondent for payment of the benefits in compliance with the directions issued by the Single Judge. But later on, on the asking of the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab, the process for filing the LPA was initiated”.

Finding the reason to be wholly inadequate, the Bench asserted a “lis” must be decided on merits instead of technicalities. Yet the fact remained that the litigant was required to show sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. “We, thus, find no reason to condone the said delay”.

Even on merits, the court found no case for interference. It upheld the Single Judge’s ruling directing the release of service benefits to the widow of a daily wager, noting that the State had itself conceded key facts in its written statement, including the regularization of the respondent’s late husband in 2011 after nearly two decades of service since 1992 on the daily wage basis.

Punjab