State Of Punjab And Others v. Bharat Bhushan
!"#$ %&
!
'& "
(%& (%"
% )
!"#$ %&
!
'& "
(%& (%"
% )
!&
& ) *%+ ,,-+ !"#$+ & % )
. $% %
& /( %#+ ,0 & % & )
. $% %
2%
&& 3 44
) 3 &0
2% & $ * 4 $5 % !"#$ %& '
(%& (%"
%+ 3% % %44*
% && )
$5
% , 4
& 6"*+ (% + 4 7 !"#$ %& '
(%& (%"
%8+ 3%&$5 ))4 "& % 9 , & 45 * % ))4 % $
2% &0
$ * 4 7 !"#$ %& '
(%& (%"
%8 3% % %44*
% && ; 0 3% % % <=" * "& %
% $# 4 $5 % 6"*: $& >) > !"#$ %& . % &0
) + %44*
4 : % && 0 3% % ))4 4 $5 % !"#$ * % && ; % 4 $
! 9& " 4 & % ) %
"$:
% % )& + "
4 $5 % & ) 3 & =)& 0 #"*: & ,="& ! .
&*" % ;+ % ) 4 ))4 "& && ; "4 ! % ))4 + % $ % %5 4& $" % = )& #"*: ? .
"&%& "$:
% % ))4 3 443 ? "
3 & & & * 4 ":$& %&&+ % & ) % 4 &0
) %44* * % && ? 3% % 3 443 ;; .
&*" %
% ) + 3% 3& %
% "
+ % "&& & *% * ))4 "& && ; "4 !
344 ))4+ %"
+ & )
* % #"*: ;;+ %
) 3 %44* % #"*: & & *45+ 4 ))4 4* 3 % ))4 & 45 .
"$:
% % ))4 & 45+ 3
) 445 % ) &*& * "&%& 4*4 $ @ )"& " % && % A *% "& 3 & 0 %&&+ % :& 3
& % ))4 3
)&&& .
"$:
% &% + '. ):
% & $5 =4" * % '. )& + 3% % 3
% & ") + 45 ))4 3 45 5 .
"$:
%
% 45 % "&& " % % 4*4 ) % $ & 0 $5 % ) %& 3 4 '. )& + %"
+ % 45 %"4 %0 $ + 3%& + 0 :)"* && + ))4 & 45 % $
9& " 4 & % ) % "&%& "$:
% 0 &0 $ 443+ :"% + % =" )& * + % ) !"#$ % 4 ) $# % % %5 %0 4 ))4 * % #"*: % "&%& % % )& *
"4:
* #"*: + =)& )& * % $ 3&*45 * % ) %"
+ % =" )& * :)4: % #"*: & 3&
44*4 * 43 % =" ))4 &0 $
.
)&5 % $% % &0
$ 443
!
9& " 4 & % & )+ % %& %+ %
"$:
% % & )
BC % )) % ) % 45 % )& * 0&5 * .
&*" % % & ) % 4 % "
% 5& 3% % 3 & $5 % & 4 "&
%+ % )& * & ) * % " $ % $ * 0 % & ) .
"$:
% & )
* % #"*: + % ) % 3 )
+ %& 4 ))4 * % #"*: & & 4 ))4 "& && ; "4 ! % !"#$ ) 4 ))4 "& && ; "4 ! 3% % 3
445 443 $5 % & 4 "& $" "4 :45+ ;;+ % &0
) * % && 4 $5 % & ) 3 443 .
"$:
% 3 %4 % 4 &0
% % ) % $ & *%45 )& * =)& %"
+ =)& #"*: & 3 ")%4 .
"$:
% % && 3 )
% )& % " 4 & % %&
% * &&
%3 % % ) % 0& ))4 & % & )5 % : %"
+ % )& 4 & * % ))4+ 3% % 3
445 &: + 3"4 5 & &: ;;+ 0
% )4 % )
@ $ &" 04" .
"$:
% 0 % 44* '. )& &:
44 + &*" $%4 %
=4"+ % 4 ))4 % $ 4 + 3% %
& % )&
:& % 0 :% &: .
&*" % D * * 5 && 5 =:) &*& * '. ):
%
$ = :&0&+
% 4 )& % 4&5 4) )& & % & * % 44* '. ):
+ &*" $5 % " 4 & % ) + %"
+ $ % )& $ * 0 % ) 9& " 4 & % & ) %
"*% &4 ") #"*: % AE$4 ")&: "& % 4 State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bherulal, &)&
2020(10) SCC 654+ "))& %
&*": .
"$:
% % & )
&" * &: ) 44& ) * %
& *%"4 " B % & ) +
"$:
% $% % $# &
$5 % ) + 3% % %0 $ % *%4 *% $& %
"& &0 $ "& *%45 &# .
&*" %
% "5 % <=" * "& =" % & % )4 3% % &
"*% $ &
$%4 % ) $ &
$& % <=" * "& !
2%
"& % %& 4& " 4 & % ) !"#$ %& 344 4& " 4 & % & ) %
)&"
% ))&$@ $% % &0
% $% % &0
& :& 4
&0 $
%
:)"* && )
$% % &0 $ ")%4 & % & 4 %& & ? .
)" % % & )(%& (%"
% %
B 4 "
3 % % 443 * )&5&
"Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is deemed to have been promoted as SS Master in master Cadre from the year 2006 ie the date of promotion of master cadre (Social study teachers) on which employees upto to the year 2001 were promoted and the plaintiff is entitled to pay all consequential service benefits including pay, seniority etc alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the due till actual payment.
And Suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to give pay to the plaintiff from December 2001 to 30.1.2008 as fixed by defendant no.6 and entries made in his servicebook." ; 2% "
3 & 0 #"*: , )&"
4 % #"*: & ,="& ! 3"4 %3 % 3 && $5 % & 4 "& % % >)& ) 4 ))& %"
+ 3& )& * =)& .
"&%&
)" % % ) >
% 4 ))4 * % #"*: & % 4 ))4 "& && ; "4 ! ; & *
% #"*: & 2% ))4 4 $5 % ) 3 443 $5 % & 4 "& 0 && ? A30&+ :)&45 * % && ?+ 4 &0
; ; 3 4+ 3% %+ " 3
" % !"#$ % &0
3
443 $5 & (% %
"& 0 && ;;
& %& * % " 4 & % & )(%& (%"
% 344 %
" 4 & % . % #"*:+ 3
) 445 $ &0 % "4 $ &" % % )& ) > % @34* % )5 % 2% &40 )& % && ;;
&)&" %& $43 "Civil Revision No.795 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2019 Bharat Bhushan ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Maloo Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab.
Xxx xxx xxx xxx [12]. ........... Factum of receipt of the aforesaid letter was communicated to the petitioner by defendant No.5 vide letter No.4014/155 dated 30.05.2017 under RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure PI8). Even the pendency of civil suit was noticed in the intra*departmental communication from the office of Director Prosecution and Litigation and Addl. Secretary, Punjab Government, Chandigarh to District Attorney, Bathinda and the intimation issued by the District Attorney, Bathinda to Director Education Department (Sr.Sec) Punjab, Mohali vide letter No.567/DA dated 01.03.2016. [13]. All these material facts could not be refuted by the respondents with reference to any material on record suggesting that defendant No.5 was not having any knowledge regarding pendency of the suit.
[14]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Bathinda is not legally sustainable and is thus set
? aside. This revision petition is allowed. Normal consequences to follow."
, )&"
4 % $0 && 3"4 %3 % " 4 & % !"#$ % ))& % 4 &0
.
)" % % )& & * ))4 * % #"*: &
5 2% 5 % & &: 3% % =)& #"*: & 3 )
<0 %
)& 4
@ &: ;;
+ % 3% % 4 &0
3 + % 4 +
))& % % 4) ; A30&+ :
45+ ))4 3
4 $5 % ) + & )& :& % 3 5& 0 &: % $0 ; &*& * % )& + %&
)4"
$4 =)4 & " "
% $
%3 2%&
% * %3 % % ) 0& ))4 & & )5 % && & & )&)& % )5+ : : 3 @ $5 % *
&5 )&)& % : <0 % ))4 & 45+ & ))45 * & % & )5 % && % $ : . % :&45 $
% ) &*& * "&%& 4*4 3 & 0 % % ) % " 4 & % % ))& % &0
% 3 & %& * 44 % )& & 4" * % " 4+ % )& 4 )
$45 & &: % 3% % ) &*& * "&%& 4*4 3 44*45 & 0 $5 % )
% &
;
&0&+ % * % $ &&& $%4 % ) %3 % ) &*& * "&%& 4*4 3 & 0 % $5 % ) ,&*": &
$& %
"& % % %& 3
'. &:
4 :)445 " "$ D D % ) % $ &&& $%4 % ) &0&+ )& 4 % 4) :"% )& & + :% &: & $ ;
:% &: ;; %+ $ & % 44* '. ):
$ * 0 % &0&+
:)&45+ 0 & + ))4 % $ 4 $5 % ) + & 45 ? :% % $ 4 3 % :% 0 &: % 2%"
+ 0&5 *+ % ) %0 $ 4= )"& "
* % 2% 0&:
: % ))4 & 45 & 0*" " " "
2% G & ,))44 "& 0 :)"* && % & *%45 $ &0 % 45 % )& 3 :& % 5 3%&
% ))4 & 45+ % $ 3&*45 % %& 3 45 5 45 2%"
+ 0 % ))4 @ % = ":$& 5 3% % % 45 % "&& &%&+ 3 %" 5 $
+ %
% %&
45 45 5 2% G & ,))44 "& % "&%& $ &0 % %& 3 =)4 * 0 $5 % ) & % 45 %0 * "&& & )
* % && $5 % &
(% %
"& ;; % 4 % 4) :"% )& & % '.+ 3% % )& % % ) %
& &: 2% ) + $ &0 % :)"* &&+ % "&& &: %"
+ %"4 %0 0 4 $% % &: * ))4 ))4 "& && ; "4 ! 3 % % )& 4 )& & $ & % % &:
%"
+ %"4 %0 4 ))4 * % #"*: 3 % :% %&&: . % )& + % ) 0 4 % ))4 3 % )& :% &:
;;+ & % &0
4 $5 % & ) 3 443+ % =)& #"*: 3 ")%4+ 3%& % ))4 % $ 4 D " =)4 % $ * 0 & % & 45 * % ))4 2% AH$4 ")&: "& % State of Madhya Pradesh and others ")&+ % @
& % 43 4 3 $5 % AH$4 ")&: "& % Office of the Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another &)& (2012) 3 SCC 563+ 3% % 3 $ &0 % 3 & *% : &: 44 % -0&: $ + % & *
&":4 % "4
& $4 )$4 =)4 & % 45
* 0 %& 3 $ & : % & $%4 )"& " % + %& 3 ) % "
"4 =)4 * 0 $5 % % 4 3 @) ) * $& 0& "
)&: . % #"*:+ 3 4 $ &0 % % 45
=) $ "
) $ & -0&: )&: + 43 %4& 0&5 "& % : 4 *% %&
%"4 $ ) 4 $ & 3 ,&
& * % $0 #"*: Office of the Chief Post Master General and others's case (Supra)+ % AH$4 ")&: "&+ )& &:
* % ) 4 90 ! : $&&+ % 4 :) +> % ) & 40 )& % #"*:
&)&" %& $43 "3. .....This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right 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 bonafide 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 redtape 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay."
Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded! 4 to 6. xxx xxx 7.
We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers
responsible.
8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner* State of Rs.25,000/* (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.
9. The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid.
10. We make it clear that if the aforesaid order is not complied within time, we will be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary."
2% 43 4 3 % #"*: :)445 "))&
% % & ) %& D &&5 #"*: % $ $%4 % ) 2%"
+ % :)"* && )
& 3 % 43 &0 $ ")%4 % & ) % $# &
% =" )& * + 3% %
% "$# :& %44* + 3"4 $ &40 %
% "5 % <=" * "& =" % & 2% $# &
$5 % ) + 3% & % #"*: $& + 3% % %0 $ % *%4 *% $& %
"& % % =)& & 3 3&*45 )
% ))4 % $ 4 $5 % ) * % #"*: %
"+ % =" ))4 %"4 $
&+ % + :& 4
, 445+ 3"4 $ &40 % % =
)& )& * %0 $ %4 $ & 3 % 43 $5 % & (% %
"& ; ; ;;+
)" % % && % $ "&%& %44* G"&%&+ 0 ))4 4 $5 % ) * % #"*: % $
0 && + % *&" 4 + 3% % && % $ ")%4 $5 %
"& 2%"
+ $% % $# 0 "&0 0 , 5 &+ % <=" * "& * $5 % & ))&45+ % $# %0 $ 4 45 45 % =" % &+ 3% %
* % : 43 4 3 $5 % AH$4 ")&: "& % 4 Periyammal (Dead) through LRs and Ors. Versus Rajamani and Anr. &)& 2025 SCC Online SC 507+ 3% % % <=" * "& %0 $ &
) % =" )& * %
= :% 2%"
+ % :)"* && 3% % &
"$# :& %44* 4 &0 $ ")%4 /) * 0 3 % $0 &":
+ $% % &0
& :& 4
& & *45
%
:)"* && )
$% % &0
& ")%4 B ,44 % ) * :
44"
))4 + 5+ %44
) 0 3 % $0 && ""#
Pawan
$%&'%&()*&+,-./0(&+)1.&2!
&)01 $%&'%&((&*1('+34&!
&)01