Dismissed¶33

State of Haryana and Others v. Kamla Devi and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2025LPA/1331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: condonation of delay; 238 days delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; CM-3268-LPA-2025; ex-gratia employment; policy dated 27.03.1991; order dated 07.08.2024; rejection order dated 14.11.2024; CWP-33271-2024 order dated 11.12.2024; contempt proceedings revived and pending; State of Haryana; Kamla Devi; LPA dismissed; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Sanjeev Prakash Sharma J.; Meenakshi I. Mehta J.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 238 days in filing of the appeal is fatal to the present case. ¶16

State of Haryana and Others Vs Kamla Devi and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

LPA-1331-2025 (O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

108

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

LPA-1331-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2025

¶6

STATE OF H ARYANA AND OTHERS

¶7

. . . . Appellant s Vs.

¶8

KAMLA DE V I AND ANOTHER

¶9

. . . . Respondent s

¶10

****

¶11

**CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ******

¶12

Present: M s. Shruti Jain Goyal, Sr. DAG, Haryana f or the appellants.

¶13

M r. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate f or the respondents.

¶14

****

¶15

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The de l ay of 238 days in filing of appe a l is fatal to the present case.

¶17

We no t ice that the impugned order d ated 07.08.2024 in the presen t appeal directed the respondents ( ap pellants herein) to conside r petitio n er No.2 (therein) for ex-gratia e mployment as per policy date d 27.03. 1 991 and appoint him if found t o be eligible in terms thereof.

¶18

The sa i d order was accepted by the ap p ellants and they passed an orde r where b y while mentioning that it is in compliance of the directions o f the Co u rt, they proceeded to reject t h e claim of the petitioner citin g

¶19

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

LPA-1331-2025 (O&M)

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

judgm e nts of the Supreme Court, wit h out challenging the order date d 07.08. 2 024 in appeal.

¶23

The w r it petitioner again filed a fres h petition challenging the orde r dated 1 4.11.2024 and the Single Judg e passed an order on 11.12.202 4 in CW P -33271-2024 as under:

¶24

“1. Learned counsel s u bmits that the order p assed rejecting the claim of t h e petitioner, is not in l etter and spirit of the directi o n of this Court. It is p rimarily based on the same gr o unds as were taken in t he written statement, Annex u re P10, to the writ p etition. He prays for withd r awal of the present p etition to file a review in t he contempt petition p referred by him, which w as disposed of on 1 9.11.2024, upon filing of Status Report along with the sp eaking order, which he coul d not at that time go t hrough so as to point out the ab o ve.

¶25

2. Ordered accordingly.”

¶26

It is in f ormed that the contempt proce e dings which had been droppe d on the ground of informing the C o urt of the order having bee n compli e d with, have been revived an d the contempt proceedings ar e pendin g .

¶27

To sav e the officer who has shown sca n t respect for the Court’s orders , the present appeal has been filed wit h an application for condonatio n of dela y in filing of appeal.

¶28

We ha v e noticed the aforesaid facts o nly to find that the applicatio n filed u n der section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed for condonatio n of dela y in filing of appeal is not on bo n a fide grounds.