The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly in cases involving the government, to balance procedural requirements with the interest of justice and public interest.

Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.

1. By this application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Rule 2(2) of Chapter V-A of the Rules of Gauhati High Court, the petitioner prays for condonation of delay of 554 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.01.05 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 761 of 2004 wherein and whereunder the learned single Judge directed the petitioner-appellant to promote the respondent-writ petitioner in the next higher scale of pay w.e.f. the date of his completion of 12 years regular service as Inspector (Sericulture). The respondent-writ petitioner, as against the prayer for condonation of delay, filed objection by way of affidavit.

2. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for the petitioner appellant as well as Mr. Kh. Binoy Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner.

3. In support of the contention, as stated in the petition for condonation of delay, Mr. N. Ibotombi submits that the delay caused is bonafide and not intentional as the Government is a machinery impersonal and nobody is looking the interest of the Government properly though some of the employees/officers are entrusted specific responsibilities, but those employees/officers try to shift their responsibility to other officers. In this way the decision for preferring the appeal could not be taken in time, and as a result of which even the application for obtaining the certified copy was also filed at belated stage. He, further, submits that the appellant No. 1 called for comments from the appellant No. 3 in the first week of April, 2005, but the appellant No. 3 could not properly function since the month of March, 2005 to May, 2005, because of the strike called by the All Manipur Sericulture Department Muster Roll Employees and workers Union, i.e. the Union of employees of department in which the respondent-writ petitioner, is working. Even sit in protest was also done by the workers' Union and employees as a result the appellant No. 3 failed to discharge his day today work. Again, on 02.04.2005, the Joint Administrative Council (JAC) of Manipur Trade Unions Council (AMTUC) and All Manipur Govt. Employees Organization (AMGEO) gave an ultimatum of fulfilling their charter of demands on or before 19.4.05 and in case of failure to fulfill the charter of demands, indefinite cease work strike would be declared within the month of April, 2005. In due course of time, the Chief Minister of the State, after taking stock of the situation, requested the aforesaid organizations to give at least 3 weeks' time to work out the detailed requirements of fund in respect of the JAC demand. As and when 12 Finance Commission award officially intimated to the Govt. of Manipur, the JAC extended the date to fulfill the charter of demand upto 11.5.2005. As the charter of demands of the JAC has not been fulfilled by the State Government, an indefinite cease work strike started from the 3rd week of May, 2005 and it continued for about 3 months and during the said period, no process could be made, as all the State Govt. employees including the Employees of the Sericulture Department joined the said strike. After processing the file at various levels of the Department for taking decision whether an appeal should be preferred against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 07.01.05, the respondent writ petitioner again filed another writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 921 of 2005 praying for implementation of the order dated 07.01.05 against which the authority decided to prefer appeal but after getting notice of the subsequent writ petition, the authority waited for the copy of the subsequent writ petition and accordingly the appropriate authority of the Govt. examined the subsequent order of the Court in writ petition and asked the Department to prepare parawise comments regarding subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner and also asked for preferring appeal