Supreme Court imposes Rs. 1 Lac fine on Government for filing SLP with a delay of 6616 days

Supreme Court imposes Rs. 1 Lac fine on Government for filing SLP with a delay of 6616 days

On 4 February 2021, the Supreme Court of India (SC) in the case of Union of India (Petitioner) v. Central Tibetan Schools Admin and Ors. (Respondent) while dismissing the SLP, slammed the Central Govt. over repeatedly disregarding the period of limitation. A fine of Rs. 1 lac is imposed for the lethargy and incompetence on part of the Govt.

A three-judge bench of SC comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy irked by the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the petitioner before the Court. The SC slammed the Government stating that it is manned with a large legal department having numerous officers and Advocates.

The Bench further pointed out that "We have repeatedly been counseling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments, and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them.

This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in a number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake!"

The factual background of the case is that a writ petition was filed in 2000 raising a question of parity in the pay-scale of the employees of the Central Tibetan School Administration and it was allowed in 2002.

The respondents preferred a Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) aggrieved by the said order that was dismissed in 2008. Then in 2016,the respondents preferred an application for seeking restoration of the LPA seeking condonation of delay of 2590 days. In 2018 the said application was dismissed. Then the respondents approached the SC through SLP after a delay of 532 days and 6616 days from the original order.

The Bench being dissatisfied with the attitude of the Union of India stated, "Other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record."

The Court further added that many governments have been ignoring the period of limitation that is set up by the statute and approaching the Top Court as if there no provision at all regarding limitation period. That although we haveimproved technology now the lethargic attitude of the governments is not changing and it is not appreciated by the Court.

The Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. BheruLal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15 October 2020 and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11 January 2021, wherein it was stated that the leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown.

The Court highlighted that this position is no more prevalent and the currentlegal position has been elucidated by the judgment ofthis Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General &Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities.

The SC characterizes such cases as 'certificate cases' and stated that the only object of it is to obtain a quietus from the SC on the ground that nothing else could be done as the Apex Court has dismissed the appeal. The bench highlighted that the objective of the government is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. The Court deprecates such practices.

It directed that "A copy of this order be placed before the Law Secretary, Govt. of India and Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development to look into the matter personally not only making them accountable for compliance but also to ensure that we are not faced with such matters in future."