•
I
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
v.
DR. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.
JANUARY 11, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
J&K Medical Educational (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1979:
G.O. No. 517-HME of 1987dated19.10.1987-PromotionalScheme-
Promotion as Assistallf Professors-Lecturers appointed ad-hoc with 7 years
as on March 31, 1987 eligible under the scheme-Single Judge of High Court
giving the benefit to those who had not completed 7 years service-Appeal to
Division Bench-Delay not condone~Explanation for delay needs to be
considered and condone~atter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal.
Judicial Notice :
Delay in filing appeals by government departments-Taking of judicial
notice-Held : R4usal to condone the delay feeds public injustice-Need for
condoning the delay.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.92 of the Jammu & Kashmir
High Court in LP.A. (SW) No. 91 of 1991.
G.M. Kawoosa and Ashok Mathur for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing either in
person or through counsel.
Leave granted.
The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
the lecturers were appointed on regular basis and satisfied the qualifications
prescribed in J & K Medical Education (Gazetted) Services Recruittoent
Rules, 1979 and were appointed to time bound promotion by virtue of
H
375
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
A
Government order No. 517-HME of 1987 dated 19.10.1987. The said order
indicates that excluding the time during which they had worked against ad
hoc appointment, if they had completed 7 years as on March 31, 1987, they
would be designated on time bound promotional scheme as Assistant
Professors in the scale of Rs. 2350-4050 w.e.f. 1.4.1987. The respondents had
B
not completed 7 years' regular service as on that date. Yet learned single
Judge had given the benefit of the above G.O. There was a delay of about
3 months in filing the appeal to the Division Be0ch. The Division Bench of
the High Court was not inclined to condone the delay on the ground that
proper explanation had not been given. We have considered the reasoning of
the learned judges. On the facts and circumstances, we think that the
C
explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal is proper. It is notorious
and court would take judicial notice that no one would take responsibility
for the delay and in the process of leisurely consultations between different
departments or at different levels in the same department the limitation to
file the appeal gets barred. Refusal to condone the delay feeds public
D
injustice and a premium for lethargy and encourages mischief. Applying the
pragmatic approach, the explanation for the delay needs to be considered and
the cause of justice advanced and consideration angulated and accordingly,
considered from that perspective the delay gets condoned. The matter is
remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits according to law.
E
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
'
---=-
-
Lex