'File under process' no longer enough to justify delay: Punjab and Haryana HC

In a reminder to government departments and public authorities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that inter-departmental correspondence and administrative file processing cannot justify prolonged delays in filing appeals.

The ruling effectively rejects one of the most familiar explanations offered by government offices for missed deadlines: that the file was moving between departments for opinions, approvals and procedural clearances.

Refusing to condone a delay of 546 days by Punjab in filing an appeal against a judgment granting revised pay scale to Psychiatrist Social Workers, the court made it clear that government agencies could not seek special treatment under limitation law merely because decisions passed through administrative channels.

The Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Amarjot Bhatti observed perusal of the documents made it clear that the delay occurred “on account of procedural communication between different departments of the State for seeking opinions and approval of the draft LPA”.

The Bench added “the delay was merely caused due to inter-departmental communication and procedural formalities”.

The Bench also took note of the State’s arguments that financial implications would arise if the appeal was not entertained, but did not find merit in the contention.

Referring to the underlying dispute, the court noted the Single Judge had allowed the employee’s writ petition on the ground that grade pay was Rs 3,800 when the advertisement was issued. But it was subsequently revised to be Rs 4,200

“Once, the pay sale of the post on which the petitioners were recruited underwent a change, the respondents were under an obligation to grant the revised pay scale, which existed in the Rules governing the service on the date when the petitioners were appointed. It has also come in the judgment passed by Single Judge, other employees, who were working in the department on the same post were getting grade pay of Rs 4,200. Therefore, the aforesaid argument raised by learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the applicant would not be sustainable,” the Bench asserted.

The Bench further observed that the law on delayed appeals by government authorities was “no longer res integra” and referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in “Shivamma (Dead) through LRs versus Karnataka Housing Board and others”, where it was held that administrative lethargy and laxity could never constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

The Bench observed: “It is settled law that mere inter-departmental communication cannot be termed to be sufficient cause within the ambit of Section 5 of Limitation Act especially when the appellant is the State authority or its instrumentality because no special treatment can be given to them and rather larger responsibility is imposed.”

The judges added the Court would have considered in “a different manner” had it been a minor delay due to the mentioned reasons.

“But inordinate delay of 546 days has occurred due to the grounds taken in the application which cannot be said to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid large delay cannot be condoned because of the reasons,” the Bench concluded.