Joint Director and Others vs N.M. Soleman and Another

The applicants have filed this application for restoration of the W.P. No. 3467/2000 (The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Raipur & others Vs. N.M. Soleman & another), which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 23.8.2006. As per the officer report the application for restoration has been filed after a delay of 1203 days. The applicants have filed I.A. No. 1 for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration.

The Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners/state on 9.6.2000, impugning the order dated 23.2.2000, passed by M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench, in O.A. No. 157/97 (N. M. Soleman Vs. The Joint Director & Others), whereby the petitioners/State were directed to pay full salary for the suspension period to the employee / respondent within three months of receipt of the order.

The Writ petition was admitted on 14.7.2000, staying the order of payment of full salary for the suspension period. Thereafter, the matter was called out on 25.7.2006 and 23.8.2006 but none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the petitioners/State. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed on 23.8.2006 for non-prosecution.

The petitioners/State has preferred the application for restoration of the writ petition on 8.1.2010 after a delay of 1203 days, without any satisfactory explanation, except that the time was taken on account of procedural sanction and approval. After dismissal of the main writ petition the order of the Tribunal was revived and the respondent/employee became entitled to full payment of salary for the suspension period. After a period of 1203 days the old issue, which stand concluded, cannot be agitated. If the restoration application is allowed after grant of application for condonation of delay, the same would defeat the purpose and object of the Limitation Act, 1963, as well as the right accrued in favour of the first respondent, which he must have enjoyed for the last three years, would be prejudiced.

Thus, having regard to facts situation of the case, wherein no public interests is involved, it is just and proper to reject the application for condonation of delay for such an inordinate and unexplained delay. In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the application for restoration of W.P. No. 3467/2000 is also dismissed.