ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, G.H.Q. and another vs ABDUL KHALIQ SIDDIQUI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which was barred by 52 days. The core legal question is whether sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay in filing the petition when the petitioners claimed they did not receive a timely copy of the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court held that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory, noting that the copy of the judgment had been duly endorsed to the petitioners and that petitioner No. 1 was negligent and lacked diligence in pursuing the remedy. The petition was accordingly dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that departments or petitioners must show active diligence and sufficient cause, and cannot rely on vague assertions of non-receipt of copies to justify prolonged delays.
- Whether delay in filing a petition can be condoned without showing sufficient cause?
- Does failure to exercise diligence in obtaining a copy of the judgment justify an inordinate delay?
- Whether the Supreme Court will exercise discretion in favor of a negligent petitioner?
ORDER
' At the very outset, this petition is barred by 52 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is admitted that judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) was announced on 22-12-2005 and office of the Tribunal forwarded a copy thereof to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, who was respondent No,1 before the Tribunal. It is alleged that no copy of the judgment was directly sent to petitioner No, I and through personal efforts such petitioner was able to obtain copy of the judgment only on 15-5-2006 whereas C.P.L.A. Was filed in office on 5-6-2006.
2. We are least convinced with the explanation offered for the inordinate delay. We are not inclined to accept that copy of the judgment was duly forwarded to petitioner No,2 and not to petitioner No,1, as it would be against the well-settled practice and procedure of the Tribunal. Even otherwise, copy of the forwarding letter produced by the petitioners clearly tends to show that copy has been duly endorsed to petitioner No,
1. At any event, petitioner No,1 should have been diligent in asking for a copy and not to wait for five months and again to waste 26 days after the collection of copy from the Tribunal.
3. Be that as it may, petition being hopelessly barred by time and there being no sufficient cause, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners, who have been completely negligent and careless in pursuing their remedy before this Court.
4. Prayer for extension of time is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.