State must act with vigilance in filing appeals: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the government machinery is expected to act with due vigilance and promptness in filing appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, and the state cannot take refuge behind vague and routine explanations for delay in the name of official procedure. The assertion came as the bench refused to condone a delay of 350 days in filing an appeal by the state of Punjab in a service matter.

Dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta asserted: “The explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay of 350 days is that the file had to be approved by several officers. The explanation is vague and nebulous and cannot be the basis for justifying such a huge delay of 350 days in filing the appeal. The applicants/appellants ought to be vigilant and taken steps to promptly file the appeal within a period of limitation”.

The bench further observed that some leniency might be shown to the state in procedural matters, but such inordinate delay could not be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. “Ordinarily, a little latitude can be showed to the state machinery but an inordinate delay of 350 days in the facts and circumstances cannot be condoned,” the bench asserted.

The appeal was directed against the single bench judgment dated September 25, 2024, by which a writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment in another case — Jinder Singh and others versus the state of Punjab and other respondents, decided on December 17, 2018.

The court observed that the single bench in Jinder Singh’s case had directed the state to grant the petitioners an opportunity to re-exercise their option under a finance department circular dated December 24, 1992, relating to the revision of pay scales. Employees who had exercised their option beyond the stipulated date were also granted the benefit of revised pay scales. The bench had clarified that the pay was to be fixed notionally with effect from January 1, 1986, January 1, 1996, and January 1, 2006, as applicable. No arrears were to be paid till the date of the order, and the actual benefit, if any, was to be extended only prospectively from the date of the judgment.

Observing that the single bench judgment in Jinder Singh’s case had already attained finality, the division bench concluded: “The judgment of the single bench in the case of the case has attained finality and therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.”