EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SAMUNDARI DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and another

' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Sumandari Drainage Sub-Division, Faisalabad is directed against the order of the Member, Lahore Bench, dated 23-2-2000 whereby the appellant's order, dated 3-1-1998 retiring the respondents herein on the basis of the entries in their service books was declared to be an act of unfair labour practice and the same was accordingly set aside with the direction to the appellant to correct the service record of the respondents according to the documents produced before the learned Member.

2. The appeal was filed by the appellant after the expiry of limitation period. The order impugned in the appeal was passed by the Single Member on 23-2-2000; the appellant applied for its copy on 28-2-2000; which was delivered to him on the same day and, thereafter, he filed the instant appeal on 30-3-2000. Thus, after excluding the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order which is only one day, the appeal is limitation-barred by 5 days though the appellant has stated in his application for condonation of delay that there was delay of about 8 days, and sought its condonation on the ground that the delay was inadvertent "and due to my sickness". In his affidavit accompanying the application for condonation, however, the appellant has taken the plea that "delay of about eight days occurred during the long procedure of the department concerned" and it has been further added in para. 5 of the affidavit that the delay occurred inadvertently and due to the sickness of his counsel.

' It may pertinently be observed that the plea taken in the appellant's affidavit regarding the delay having occurred due to procedural formalities was not raised in the application for condonation.

Not only that, the plea in question is shorn of necessary details. For instance, it has not been explained by the appellant as to when he sent the case to the concerned authorities for obtaining their approval/opinion; when was it received back with advice/approval for filing the appeal and when was it entrusted to the counsel for preferring the appeal. In the absence of these relevant/necessary details, the vague plea of the delay having occurred because of "the long procedure of the department concerned" cannot be sustained/accepted. Needless to observe that condonation of delay on such a ground would amount to putting premium on the negligence/want of due diligence on the part of the Government functionaries who cannot be treated differently from other litigants. Even otherwise, the plea of delay having occurred on account of the so-called long procedure of the department, has never been accepted by the Courts as a valid ground for condoning the delay. Reference may usefully be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan" (1981 SCM R 37) wherein it was held "The time said to have been spent during which the various authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether an appeal should or should not be filed cannot be excused." This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger than those possessed by ordinary litigants, if in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law changed". It was further observed in the afore-noted case that according to the law, each day's delay must properly and satisfactorily be explained and the excuse that the matter got delayed because of its having remained under examination at different departmental levels is never a valid ground for condonation of delay.

3. As regards the plea of sickness of the counsel, it is again wanting in necessary details as to when he became sick, for how long he remained sick and what was the nature of his ailment. The plea has also not been supported by an affidavit of the counsel nor any other corroborative document such as medical certificate has been placed on the record. This plea has thus remained unsubstantiated.

4. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find it a fit case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected and resultantly, the appeal is dismissed as time-barred.