CNR No. PHHC011149702026 CM-4756-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1959-2026 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (124) CM-4756-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1959-2026 Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 Bimla Singla ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, and Ms. Gauri Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-4756-LPA-2026 1. The present appeal has been filed alongwith an application seeking the condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants submits that the delay in filing the present appeal is bona fide and occurred due to procedural reasons. It is submitted that the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2026, passed by learned Single Judge, was received in the office of the counsel on 19.03.2026. However, owing to the renovation work in the counsel's office, the certified copy got misplaced along with other case files. SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document CNR No. PHHC011149702026 CM-4756-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1959-2026 2 | P a g e Therefore, the present appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, the delay may kindly be condoned. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that the writ petition, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.03.2026 in CWP No.7281 of 2026, on the ground of delay laches that a relief which, according to the appellant herself, accured to her in the year 1988 on account of acquiring the qualification M.Phil while she was in service, was never raised till her retirement date (i.e. 29.02.2012) but the same was raised after lapse of period of more than 13 years from the date of retirement meaning thereby that a claim was raised after 36 years which claim has been dismissed as not maintainable on account of delay and laches. 5. Despite the fact that delay was the ground for dismissing the writ petition, even the appeal preferred, is barred by limitation and an application has been filed for the condonation of delay of approximately more than three and half months. As per the settled principles of law, the delay has to be explained that the same was due to any act which was beyond the control of the appellant whereas, not even a single averment has been made to show as to what was the ground for delay in filing the appeal as well. 6. In the application, it has been mentioned that it was due to the fact that office of the counsel was being renovated due to which delay SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document CNR No. PHHC011149702026 CM-4756-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1959-2026 3 | P a g e occurred, the same cannot be accepted as, the affidavit filed along with the application is of the appellant not of the counsel. 7. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 titled as Office of the Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, decided on 24.02.2012, each day’s delay is to be explained so as to satisfy the Court that the delay caused was beyond the control of the applicants-appellants. 8. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:- “2. The following issues arise for consideration: a) Whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing SLPs before this Court. Depending on the outcome of the above issue, other issues to be considered are: b) Whether the impugned advertisement inserted in the Reader's Digest issue of December, 2005 is in conformity with the requirement of law. c) Whether the Department has made out a case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to reopen concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High Court. 13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document CNR No. PHHC011149702026 CM-4756-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1959-2026 4 | P a g e special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs. 9. In the present case, not even a single reason has been mentioned to explain the delay of 95 days, which has occurred in filing the present appeal. 10. Keeping in view the above as the delay has not been explained in terms of the settled principles of law and even the ground given for the delay is not plausible, therefore, keeping in view the fact that there is no affidavit of the counsel appended with the application, to whom the delay was being attributed, no ground is made out to condone the delay especially when even the writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of delay. As SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document CNR No. PHHC011149702026 CM-4756-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1959-2026 5 | P a g e the present appeal is barred by limitation, the same is dismissed on the ground of limitation. 11. Accordingly, the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing of present appeal, stands dismissed. LPA-1959-2026 1. As the present appeal is beyond the limitation provided and the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal has been dismissed, the letter patent appeal also stands dismissed as time barred. 2. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 20, 2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document