Chief General Manager, Telecom and Another Vs. G. Mohan Prasad and Others
EmailAppeal: SLPs (C) Nos. 1385-86 of 1998(From the Judgment and Order dated 30-11-1994 in OAs Nos. 1132 and 1166 of 1993 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hydera-bad Bench)
Petitioner: Chief General Manager, Telecom and Another
Respondent: G. Mohan Prasad and Others
Apeal: SLPs (C) Nos. 1385-86 of 1998(From the Judgment and Order dated 30-11-1994 in OAs Nos. 1132 and 1166 of 1993 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hydera-bad Bench)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 03, 1999
Head Note:
CONSTITUTON
Costitution of India 1950
Article 136 – Delay – Condonation – When permissible – Pecuniary benefits drawn by Govt. servant – Not found entitled to – Condonation, if permissible. Held that condonation is discretion of court and depends upon circumstances of each case. Since pecuniary benefits have been drawn and were not authorised, delay of 195 days condoned.(Paras 2, 3)
Costitution of India 1950
Article 136 – Delay – Condonation – When permissible – Pecuniary benefits drawn by Govt. servant – Not found entitled to – Condonation, if permissible. Held that condonation is discretion of court and depends upon circumstances of each case. Since pecuniary benefits have been drawn and were not authorised, delay of 195 days condoned.(Paras 2, 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Union of India v. R. Swaminathan JT 1997 (8) SC 61
2. State of U.P. v. Vinod Prakash Tayal 1995 Supp (4) SCC 412
2. State of U.P. v. Vinod Prakash Tayal 1995 Supp (4) SCC 412
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Notice had been issued in this case both on the question of condonation of delay of 195 days as well as on merits indicating that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage itself in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. R. Swaminathan JT 1997 (8) SC 61.
2. Today, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that there has been no explanation offered on behalf of the Union of India for condoning the gross delay of 195 days and, therefore, the rights of the respondent accrued pursuant to the judgment of the Tribunal should not be interfered with. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vinod Prakash Tayal 1995 Supp (4) SCC 412 where a delay of 149 days had not been condoned by this Court. The question of condonation of delay is a discretion of the court depending upon the circum-stances of each case. If a government servant has been conferred certain pecuniary benefits which he is not otherwise entitled to under the rules, non-interference with such an order is a burden on the exchequer and, in view of the aforesaid three-Judge Bench of this Court, while issuing notice itself, the Court had indi-cated that the matter would be disposed of at the admission stage.
3. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the delay should be condoned and we, accordingly, condone the delay.
4. When we called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to address us on merits, the learned counsel says that he is handicapped as certain provisions of the rules are not with him. We expect, this prayer could have been made at the very beginning of the hearing of the case and not at the end of the hearing on the question of limitation, but since the counsel says that he is handicapped because the rules are not with him, we do not want to penalise the respondent on that score. We, therefore, adjourn this matter to next Friday, i.e., 19-3-1999, for hearing on mer-its.
Court Masters.
1. Notice had been issued in this case both on the question of condonation of delay of 195 days as well as on merits indicating that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage itself in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. R. Swaminathan JT 1997 (8) SC 61.
2. Today, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that there has been no explanation offered on behalf of the Union of India for condoning the gross delay of 195 days and, therefore, the rights of the respondent accrued pursuant to the judgment of the Tribunal should not be interfered with. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vinod Prakash Tayal 1995 Supp (4) SCC 412 where a delay of 149 days had not been condoned by this Court. The question of condonation of delay is a discretion of the court depending upon the circum-stances of each case. If a government servant has been conferred certain pecuniary benefits which he is not otherwise entitled to under the rules, non-interference with such an order is a burden on the exchequer and, in view of the aforesaid three-Judge Bench of this Court, while issuing notice itself, the Court had indi-cated that the matter would be disposed of at the admission stage.
3. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the delay should be condoned and we, accordingly, condone the delay.
4. When we called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to address us on merits, the learned counsel says that he is handicapped as certain provisions of the rules are not with him. We expect, this prayer could have been made at the very beginning of the hearing of the case and not at the end of the hearing on the question of limitation, but since the counsel says that he is handicapped because the rules are not with him, we do not want to penalise the respondent on that score. We, therefore, adjourn this matter to next Friday, i.e., 19-3-1999, for hearing on mer-its.
Court Masters.
