Govt Officers Ignoring Orders Until Contempt Notice Is Issued Not Approvable: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Condone Delay Of 345 Days In Filing Appeal

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the sleaziness of Government Officers in filing Appeals until contempt notice is issued cannot be approved, and therefore delays cannot be condoned as a matter of right.

The Division Bench of the Court was considering a Special Appeal against an order of the single judge whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Respondents was allowed and the orders impugned were quashed with the direction to the Appellants to permit the Respondents to continue to serve in the institution and pay their salary in terms of approval of appointment passed in their favour.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh observed, "The attitude of the officers, in ignoring the orders passed by the Court till such time that notices in the contempt petition are issued, cannot be approved. On many occasions, despite issuance of notices in contempt petition, no action is taken and it is only when the directions are issued for personal presence that for the first time, the officers care for the orders passed by the Court. There are hardly any appeals which are filed without application seeking condonation of delay, which conduct on part of the appellants cannot be appreciated/encouraged."

The Appellant was represented by Senior Counsel Anand Kumar Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Girish Chandra Verma.

Facts of the Case

The Appeal was barred by 345 days and an Application seeking condonation of delay was filed along with a sworn affidavit. It was claimed that the delay in filing the Appeal is genuine, bona fide and unintentional. The delay occurred on account of administrative formalities by following certain norms and procedures of disciplined and systematic performance of official functions, which takes some time as it depends upon so many factors/circumstances, including certain unavoidable and unspoken circumstances.

Objection/ Affidavit in reply to the Application indicated that a concocted story was made without any supporting evidence and only after six months of passing of the order impugned, the State Government took cognizance of the same. It was further stated that some periods were without any explanation and it was emphasized that the Special Appeal was filed when the Respondents filed the Contempt Petition and Notices were issued.

Reasoning By Court

The Court stated that the entire sequence of events explaining the delay clearly reflects a totally lacklustre attitude towards compliance of the directions issued by the Court.

"It would be seen that despite the fact that the appellants were represented by counsel and the order impugned dated 21.04.2023 was passed by learned Single Judge, there is no whisper of any receipt of judgment and/or the opinion pertaining to the impugned order from the Government Counsel", the Court observed.

On Counsel for the Appellant's reply regarding the procedure that whenever any order is passed against the State, the order of the Court along with the opinion is sent to the Government/Department/the officer in charge, the Court noted, "The indications made that on receipt of the judgment from the respondents, the ball was set rolling for seeking opinion, clearly reflects a total collapse of the system which, it is claimed, is in place."

It expressed shock at the fact that once the judgment was received and the opinion was given by the Chief Standing Counsel on May 16, 2023, still, nothing proceeded/none cared for the order passed by the Court and the State Government, after passage of over five months, required to make available proposal and sought further opinion from the Chief Standing Counsel.

"As to what happened to the opinion given on 16.05.2023, is only open to speculation and what the State Government was doing since the opinion was given on 16.05.2023 till 11.10.2023 i.e. period of five months, nothing has been indicated/no care has been taken to explain the said period. Even when the fresh opinion was made available on 18.11.2023, the things still did not move and thereafter also it has taken five months in filing the appeal", the Court asked.

It thus ruled that in the entire affidavit, there is no intention to indicate the sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay, only formality of indicating dates has been fulfilled and thereafter, sermons on the working of the Government have been indicated that it took time in completing the administrative formalities by following certain norms and procedure of ‘disciplined and systematic performance of official functions’ and that among the several factors on which depend the time consumed in process, there are ‘certain unavoidable and unspoken circumstances’.

"The indications made and the tenor of language used in the affidavit clearly suggest that the appellants have taken it for granted that irrespective of the quantum of delay and the conduct of the officers in taking orders passed by the Court casually, filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a mere formality and seeking condonation is a matter of right. Such conduct of the officers cannot be countenanced", the Court observed.

Citing Supreme Court's ruling in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. : (2012) and State of Kerala Vs. Akshaya Jewellers, the Court observed that the Appellants have failed to make out any case for condonation of delay, let alone a sufficient cause in this regard.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: State of U.P. vs. Jai Singh and others (2025:AHC-LKO:41512-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant- Senior Counsel Anand Kumar Singh

Respondent- Advocate Girish Chandra Verma, Advocate Vinay Kumar Verma, Advocate Raman Kumar

Click here to read/ download Order