EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI and 6 others vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and another
This matter concerns a series of petitions filed against a judgment dated 22nd June 2004, which the petitioners sought to challenge despite the petitions being time-barred. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing these petitions could be condoned based on the petitioners' claims of delayed notification of the judgment or personal circumstances, such as mental distress. The Supreme Court held that the grounds for condonation were insufficient, noting that the judgment was announced in the presence of the parties and their counsel. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners had already been reinstated in service and were currently facing separate disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Services (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions due to the lack of a plausible reason for the delay. The key principle established is that a mere assertion of delayed knowledge or personal distress is inadequate to justify the condonation of delay when the judgment was delivered in the presence of counsel, and that procedural timelines for filing appeals must be strictly adhered to absent compelling, substantiated grounds.
- Can a delay in filing a petition be condoned based on a claim of delayed notification when the judgment was announced in the presence of the parties' counsel?
- Is mental distress or family tension a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition?
- Does the fact that petitioners have been reinstated in service affect the maintainability of a time-barred petition challenging a previous order?
- Removal from Services (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.--Listed petitions have been filed against the judgments dated 22nd June, .2004. Concluding para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Abdul Rashid Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation, in some appeals, has submitted that these appeals are time-barred. His objection is not correct. All appeals were filed in time. But even in time barred appeals benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal has to be extended to those employees also who have not filed appeals. The objection is overruled."
2. Petitions are barred by time. Applications have been moved separately for condonation of delay mainly on the ground that the petitioners were informed later on about the judgment as such they approached the Court with the delay of 2/3 days in each case.
3. It may be noted that plea taken by them is not acceptable because the arguments were advanced and judgment was announced on 22nd June, 2004 in presence of parties and their respective counsel. However, in one of the petition i,e, 2912-L of 2004 petitioner has taken plea that as he was mentally disturbed and under high tension because of family circumstances, therefore, he could not approach the Court within time.
' We are of the opinion that grounds taken in all petitions are not available. Besides it, learned counsel for caveat informed that in pursuance of impugned order petitioners were reinstated on 28th June, 2004 and presently they are facing proceedings under the Removal from Services (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000. Be that as it may, no plausible reason has been assigned for condonation of delay, therefore, instant petitions are dismissed accordingly.