@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.L. Bhat, J.@mdashThe Petitioner''s appeal has been dismissed on 9-11-87 as time barred. He prays for quashing of the said order and seeks a direction to the Respondents to decide the appeal on merits.
2. The facts of the case are given briefly as under:
The Petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Godown keeper in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. at Banda on 18-4-68. On 22-5-76 the Petitioner was dismissed from service and he is said to have received the dismissal order on 12-6-76. He is said to have filed an appeal against the said order on 8-7-76 before Respondent No. 1. The appeal is said to have been sent by registered post from the post office situated at Bharatpur gate, Mathura. The appeal is said to have been received by Respondent No. 1 on 12-7-76. Photostat copy of the Acknowledgement Due. Is placed On record as Annexure-2. The Petitioner is said to have waited for the disposal of the appeal for 10 years but the appeal was not decided, not was he informed about the fate of the appeal. He is said to have filed a writ petition in the High Court requesting for issuance of directions to Respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal expeditiously. A direction was issued to Respondent No. 1 on 24-4-87 in the said writ petition to decide the appeal within three months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order of the High Court. The appeal was not decided within the time frame, therefore, the Petitioner seems to have filed a contempt petition which is still pending.
3. The Petitioner is said to have received a letter on 9-11-87 stating therein that his appeal has been rejected on the ground that it was received nine days late. The Respondents contention was that the appeal as received on 20-7-76. The Petitioner''s submission is that the appeal was not time barred. It was filed within time. Therefore, the order dated 9-11-87 dismissing the appeal as time barred is liable to be set aside.
4. The contention of the Respondents is that the appeal was received on 20-7-76 and not on 12-7-76. The appeal is said to have been filed nine days after the expiry of the period. The time for filing the appeal is 30 days under Regulation 87(e) of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Employees'' Service Regulations. The appeal being barred by time could not be considered on merit.
5. From the record, it is revealed that the appeal was sent by post on 8-7-76 from examination of Photostat copy of the Acknowledgement Due Form, it is revealed that the appeal was received by Respondent No. 1''s office on 12-7-76. It was dispatched on 8-7-76. The dispute is regarding the receipt of the appeal in the office of Respondent No. 1. According to the Petitioner, it was received by the office of Respondent No. 1 on 12-7-76, but according to the Respondents it was received on 20-7-76. There is no dispute regarding the date of dispatched of the appeal which is 8-7-76.
6. On the date of despatch of the appeal by registered post by the Petitioner on 8-7-76, the appeal was within time. If it was received by the office of Respondent No. 1 on 12-7-76 as is reflected by the postal record, then the appeal is received within time. It could not be, in that event, dismissed as time barred.
7. Assuming that the appeal was received in the office of Respondent No. 1 on 20-7-76, that is, about nine days of the expiry of time for filing the appeal, even then the appeal cannot be said to be barred by time because it was sent through registered post within time i.e. on 8-7-76 On 8-7-76 time for filing the appeal had not expired. So, it was despatched well within the time of limitation, to the office of Respondent No. 1. If Respondent No. 1 had received it on 20-7-76 the Petitioner cannot be blamed for that. Uncertainty of delivery of registered letters or delay in transit for one reason or the other, may have delayed the delivery of the appeal, but it will not become barred by time because it was despatched on 8-7-76 when the time for filing the appeal had not run out. Therefore, the appeal of the Petitioner was not time barred and could not be dismissed as time barred. The impugned order whereby the appeal has been dismissed as time barree on 9-11-87 is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9-11-87 by which the appeal of the Petitioner has been dismissed as barred by time is quashed and Respondent No. 1 is directed by a writ of mandamus to treat the appeal to have been filed within the period of limitation and decide the same on merits by a reasoned order in accordance with law.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal was decided by a cryptic order after more than 11 years of its receipt. This delay which is caused in the disposal of the appeal is to be viewed with grave concern. Respondent No. 1 shall, therefore decide the appeal within three months from the date of supply of a certified copy this order to him.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order stands quashed.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
