LPA-1331-2025 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS KAMLA DEVI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Sr. for the appellants. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. The delay of 238 days in filing of appeal is fatal to the present case. 2. We notice that the appeal petitioner No.2 27.03.1991 and appoint him if found to be eligible in terms thereof. 3. The said order was accepted by the appellants and they passed an order whereby while mentioning that it is in compliance of the directions of the Court, they proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner citing 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. KAMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The delay of 238 days in filing of appeal is fatal to the present case. We notice that the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 in the present directed the respondents (appellants herein) to consider petitioner No.2 (therein) for ex-gratia employment as per policy dated 27.03.1991 and appoint him if found to be eligible in terms thereof. The said order was accepted by the appellants and they passed an order whereby while mentioning that it is in compliance of the directions of the Court, they proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner citing IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1331-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA DAG, Haryana SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The delay of 238 days in filing of appeal is fatal to the present case. order dated 07.08.2024 in the present directed the respondents (appellants herein) to consider gratia employment as per policy dated 27.03.1991 and appoint him if found to be eligible in terms thereof. The said order was accepted by the appellants and they passed an order whereby while mentioning that it is in compliance of the directions of the Court, they proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner citing (O&M) .2025 s s order dated 07.08.2024 in the present directed the respondents (appellants herein) to consider gratia employment as per policy dated The said order was accepted by the appellants and they passed an order whereby while mentioning that it is in compliance of the directions of the Court, they proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner citing MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1331-2025 judgments of the Supreme Court, without cha 07.08.2024 in appeal. 4. The writ petitioner again filed a fresh petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 and the Single Judge passed an order on 11.12.2024 in CWP passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is not in letter and spirit of the direction of this Court. It is primarily based on the same grounds as were taken in the written statement, Annexure P10, to the writ petition. He prays for withdrawal of the petition to file a review in the contempt petition preferred by him, which was disposed of on 19.11.2024, upon filing of Status Report along with the speaking order, which he could not at that time go through so as to point out the above. 5. It is informed on the ground of informing the Court of the order having been complied with, have been revived and the contempt proceedings are pending. 6. To save the officer who has show the present appeal has been filed with an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. 7. We have noticed the aforesaid facts only to find that the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1 of delay in filing of appeal is not on 2025 (O&M) judgments of the Supreme Court, without cha 07.08.2024 in appeal. The writ petitioner again filed a fresh petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 and the Single Judge passed an order on 11.12.2024 in CWP-33271-2024 as under: “1. Learned counsel submits that the orde passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is not in letter and spirit of the direction of this Court. It is primarily based on the same grounds as were taken in the written statement, Annexure P10, to the writ petition. He prays for withdrawal of the petition to file a review in the contempt petition preferred by him, which was disposed of on 19.11.2024, upon filing of Status Report along with the speaking order, which he could not at that time go through so as to point out the above. 2. Ordered accordingly.” It is informed that the contempt proceedings which had been dropped on the ground of informing the Court of the order having been complied with, have been revived and the contempt proceedings are pending. To save the officer who has shown scant respect for the Court’s orders, the present appeal has been filed with an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. We have noticed the aforesaid facts only to find that the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1 of delay in filing of appeal is not on bona fide judgments of the Supreme Court, without challenging the order dated The writ petitioner again filed a fresh petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 and the Single Judge passed an order on 11.12.2024 “1. Learned counsel submits that the order passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is not in letter and spirit of the direction of this Court. It is primarily based on the same grounds as were taken in the written statement, Annexure P10, to the writ petition. He prays for withdrawal of the present petition to file a review in the contempt petition preferred by him, which was disposed of on 19.11.2024, upon filing of Status Report along with the speaking order, which he could not at that time go through so as to point out the above. that the contempt proceedings which had been dropped on the ground of informing the Court of the order having been complied with, have been revived and the contempt proceedings are n scant respect for the Court’s orders, the present appeal has been filed with an application for condonation We have noticed the aforesaid facts only to find that the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed for condonation bona fide grounds. llenging the order dated The writ petitioner again filed a fresh petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 and the Single Judge passed an order on 11.12.2024 that the contempt proceedings which had been dropped on the ground of informing the Court of the order having been complied with, have been revived and the contempt proceedings are n scant respect for the Court’s orders, the present appeal has been filed with an application for condonation We have noticed the aforesaid facts only to find that the application 963 filed for condonation MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1331-2025 8. In view of above, application dismissed. Appeal is 9. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 06.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) In view of above, application bearing dismissed. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No bearing No.CM-3268-LPA-2025 is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No is MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document