EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
The petitioners filed petitions against the judgments dated 22nd June, 2004, which were found to be barred by time. Separate applications for condonation of delay were moved on the ground that petitioners were informed later about the judgment and approached the court with a delay of two to three days, while one petitioner cited mental disturbance and family circumstances. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed for the condonation of delay in filing the petitions. The Supreme Court held that the grounds taken were unacceptable as arguments were advanced and the judgment was announced in the presence of the parties and their counsel, and no plausible reason was assigned for the delay. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as time-barred.
- Whether delay in filing petitions can be condoned on the ground of late intimation when judgment was announced in the presence of counsel?
- Can personal mental disturbance and family circumstances serve as sufficient ground for condonation of delay without plausible justification?
- Whether petitions barred by time without valid explanation are liable to be dismissed?
- Removal from Services (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, 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 petitions 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 28 th 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.
S.A.K./E-28/S Petition dismissed.