' SYED NAJAM-UL-HASAN KAZMI, J.---This order shall dispose of C.M. No,1 of 1997 in I.C.A. No,497 of 1997 and C.M. No,1 of 1997 in ICA No,498 of 1997, as also the two appeals ICA No,497/1997 and ICA No,498/1997, as common question of law and facts will arise in the two appeals.
2. Constitutional Petitions Nos.17711 of 1996 and 17712 of 1996 were filed by Muhammad Ibrahim Azad and Muhammad Zaman Malik, respondent No,1 in the two appeals, seeking a direction against the appellant for notifying the action approved by Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 29-11-1991, granting pro forma promotion, to the said respondents, in B.S. 18, w,e,f, 1-6-1973, in the light of the decision in Civil Appeal No,190/88, of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. These two petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order, dated 4-4-1997, whereby respondents were directed to implement the orders of the promotion of the said respondents, forthwith. In these appeals, orders, dated 4-4-1997 have been assailed.
3. Applications, seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal (C.M.No,1/1997) have been filed in the two appeals, as the appeals are admittedly barred by time. Learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the delay in filing of appeal, occurred due to the fact that the appellant/department had applied to the office of Solicitor Punjab for approval to file appeal against the order, under challenge, which approval was received on 30-5-1997. It was, therefore, argued, that the time consumed by the Solicitor Office, be condoned and appeal may be heard on merits.
4. We have considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and found that there are no merits in the submissions made. The orders, subject-matter of challenge in the two appeals, were passed on 4-4-1997. A period of 20 days is prescribed for filing an Intra-Court Appeal. The appeals in question have been filed after 67 days. As per admission in paragraph No,3 of the application (C.M. No,1/1997), the appellant/department applied for approval to the Solicitor of Punjab on 15-5-1997 when the limitation to file appeal had already expired. The appeal could have been filed till 24th of April 1997 while it has been filed on 11-6-1997. There is no explanation as to why approval was not sought within limitation. No explanation, whatsoever, has been given for the period commencing from 4-4-1997 to 14-5-1997. Even no material whatsoever has been placed on the record to prima facie establish, that the department applied to the Solicitor on 15-5-1997. In the absence of copy of the letter seeking approval to file appeal with copy of the alleged sanctioned advice, for filing of appeal, the plea raised in the application, can not otherwise be entertained.
5. In Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji and others (1970 SCM R 558), condonation of delay was sought on the ground, that the time intervening was consumed for seeking approval to file appeal. It was held in the said case as follows:--- "We also find it difficult to appreciate why the Deputy Commissioner, when he did not receive any reply to his proposal for filing the appeal, did not personally contact the Legal Remembrance himself, by telephone or otherwise, and enquire into the fate of his proposal. In any event, if ever there was a case of negligence we are satisfied that this is one. It is idle on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the Government to contend that there was no negligence on the part of officials of the Government in the circumstances of this case".
' In view of the rule, noted supra, it was the duty of the officials concerned, to take personal pain, and necessary steps, to ensure that the requisition of sanction to file appeal is made and approval received, in time, so as to ensure that the appeal is filed within time. They are not absolved of their duties by making correspondence on the subject, and that too after the expiry of limitation, without taking steps to ensure completion of needful within the prescribed time. Neither any steps are claimed to have been taken nor any material placed on record, alongwith the application seeking condonation of delay, therefor, the admitted facts, in this case, are evidence of lack of due diligence and negligence on the part of functionaries of the appellants, which can hardly furnish any justification for allowing condonation of delay.
6. According to the appellant, the approval was received on 30-5-1997, yet the appeal was filed on 1 1 th of June, 1997. There is no explanation whatsoever for the period between 30-5-1997 to 10-6- 1997.
7. Even if the plea raised by appellant regarding application for approval to file appeal is taken in view and the time consumed, therefor, is excluded, 'the appeal will still be barred by time as the alleged application for seeking approval is claimed to have been sent after the expiry of period of limitation and there is no explanation for the intervening period between 4-4-1997 to 14-5-1997.
8. It is repeatedly held, that in the matter of limitation Government cannot claim any exceptional treatment. Being a party in the litigation, the Government functionaries are expected to take all possible steps, for ensuring that the remedy is availed within the limitation.
9. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan (1981 SCM R 37), it was held as follows:--- "This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger than those possessed by ordinary litigants. If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law. See Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji 1970 SCM R 558. The Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, Lahore etc. v. Sayed Safdar Hussain Shah 1979 SCM R 45 and Custodian of Enemy Property v. Hoshang N. Dastur and others 1979 SCM R 191.
' We may again clarify that according to the law each day of limitation must properly and satisfactorily be explained and the excuse that the matter got delayed because of its having remained under examination at different departmental levels is never a valid ground for extension of period of limitation and does not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It is a matter of regret that despite this position being repeatedly clarified by this Court and the High Courts the Government Departments with all their resources continue to delay the filing of the cases in time with loss to the Government and the public interest, it is high time that the Government Departments so organise their business that legal cases are not unnecessarily delayed and are instituted in Court within the time limited for much matters.
' The overall result is that all these petitions must fail on the ground of limitation and are, accordingly dismissed hereby."
' Similarly, in Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Nisar and others (1984 CLC 2310), it was held as follows:--- "All that Mr. Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate, for the appellant could say in this behalf was that a lot of time was consumed in official correspondence from office to office and reference to the Law Division for obtaining sanction to file the present appeal and that in any case, there was no deliberateness in filing it late. The explanation was too general to be accepted. No material was brought on the record to show how much time was taken in the inter-office correspondence, obtaining copies, and then the sanction of the Law Division. The delay of each day had to be explained and in this case it being of somewhat 124 days, needed something convincing for condonation. No genuine effort was made to explain it away and hence the appeals fail on this preliminary objection. "
10. The review of facts in the present case, in the light of rule laid in the cases noted supra, will show, that the appellants have not acted with due diligence and efficiency and it is a case of extreme negligence, where the functionaries of the appellants slept over the matter during limitation period and became active, after the remedy of appeal had become barred by time. The application and the affidavit, lacking explanation for the inaction during the period of limitation and thereafter, till 14-5-1997, delay of each and every day has neither been explained nor any sufficient ground is given for non-filing of appeal in time. A valuable right having accrued in favour of respondents, they cannot be deprived therefrom, keeping in view the conduct of the functionaries of appellants.
No case is made out for condonation of delay.
11. For the reasons above, the applications seeking condonation of delay being without merits are dismissed and inconsequence, the two appeals being barred by time are dismissed in limine. No order as to cost.