The law of limitation is founded on public policy and statutes of limitation are enacted to ensure that parties approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay.

ORDER :

“Law comes to the assistance of the vigilant not of the sleepy.” - Salmond.

Fixing a lifespan for availing legal remedy and object for fixing time limit for litigation is for the purpose of general welfare. Otherwise there would be no end of any litigation unless the limitation is prescribed.

1. This review petition is time barred by 2264 days. The review petitioner (State/Respondents) has approached this Court seeking review of the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Court by which the batch of writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners were allowed with the following observations and directions:-

“Taking into consideration the facts and the Rules referred to above, I am of the opinion that the respondents should have considered case of the petitioners for grant of study leave as their admission in PG course was after entering into service. The embargo to complete three years service before seeking study leave would not apply to the petitioners being probationers thus cannot be considered to be temporary employees.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant study leave as per Rules 110 and 122 of the Rules for a period of 36 months, i.e., the period of PG Course. On completion of the course, petitioners be allowed to join the post. The petitioners would, however, furnish an undertaking along with a bond of Rs.10 lac each to the effect that after completion of PG course they will serve the government for a minimum period of five years.

The undertaking along with bond would be furnished by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of this order.”

2. An application for condonation of delay of 2264 days has been submitted to explain the delay in filing this review petition and the following reasons have been mentioned in paragraph Nos.2 to 4, which are reproduced as under:-

2. That order under review was passed on 07.09.2016. It is submitted that after obtaining the legal opinion the matter was proceeded on various levels and due to administrative reasons and due to the time consumed during worldwide Covid-19 pandemic, in seeking opinion from various levels, and it was finally decided by the State Government and the review petition was prepared and filed.

3. That SB Civil Contempt Petition No.759/2020 was also filed by the petitioner which was disposed off by this Hon’ble Court on 14.07.2022.

4. That the delay caused in filing of the review petition is not coupled with any malafide or deliberate intention rather it is due to aforesaid bonafide reasons, as such it deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice since the applicants have a strong case on merits.”

3. From the aforesaid facts mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, it is clear that the review petitioner/State was completely indolent and lethargic in taking remedy. The impugned order was passed on 07.09.2016. Even according to the petitioner there was worldwide spread of Covid-19 pandemic and time was consumed due to administrative reasons. It is worthy to note here that the lockdown started only from 20.03.2020 and the Hon’ble Apex Court condoned / excluded the delay In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No.3/2020 where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. The period commencing from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded in computing the period of limitation. But here in this case, the impugned order was passed on 07.09.2016 while no review petition was filed till 14.03.2020 and even the same was not filed after 01.03.2022 till 14.12.2022. Even if the period of Covid-19 w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 is excluded, this petition is hopelessly time barred by more than four years. The State authority was sitting over this matter for more than four years without any justified reason.

4. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements have deprecated such practice on the par