Haryana: Anguished, HC admits to 19-year delay in deciding appeal
Orders ex-gratia appointment, warns Haryana with Rs 5L costs
Expressing anguish over a 23-year-long wait in a service matter and nearly 19 years taken to decide a pending appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the state to issue an appointment letter forthwith to a candidate, who had won a civil suit for ex-gratia appointment in 2006.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma also directed the state not to compel him to initiate execution proceedings, and that failure to comply with the directions immediately would invite Rs 5 lakh costs to be paid to the applicant-candidate.
The Bench was told that the candidate had filed a civil suit in 2003 seeking ex-gratia appointment after the death of his mother (through adoption). She was at that time working at a Gohana veterinary hospital. His adoption was not held to be legal since his age at the time of the adoption deed registration was over 16 years.
The suit was decreed in his favour in 2006, and the state’s appeal was dismissed the same year. A regular second appeal (RSA) was filed by the state the next year and the operation of the decree was stayed on March 2, 2007. The appeal remained pending since.
“The present RSA pertains to the year 2007 and is now been decided after almost 19 years because of which the respondent is deprived of his right to be appointed on the post after the death of his mother,” the court observed.
“Before parting, this court would like to share its pain and feelings in such kind of cases where specially in service matters, litigants are waiting for the decision since long,” it said.
For preventing further delay and harassment to the respondent, the court asserted justice demanded the issuance of directions to the appellants that they should not force the respondent to file execution. “This court is well aware of the scope of decision in the RSA and that the courts cannot go beyond the relief prayed for in the civil suit. In such cases, as in the present RSA.... the appellants are directed to issue the appointment letter to the respondent forthwith,” the Bench asserted.
