Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, RANJAN SHARMA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this application, a prayer has been made by the applicants/State for condonation of 241 days delay in filing the appeal.
2. The State has preferred the appeal alongwith this application, against the judgment dated 09.10.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1747 of 2023, titled as Dinesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in terms whereof, learned Single Judge directed step-up of the pay of the petitioners at par with the pay of their junior, namely Hemant Kumar.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that 241 days’ delay in filing the appeal, is bonafide and the reasons as to why the appeal could not be filed either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter, stand spelled out in para-2(b) of the application. He further submitted that taking into consideration the fact that there is a machinery which deals with the legal issues and the channels have to be exhausted while taking a decision as to whether the judgment has to be assailed or not, the application be allowed so that the applicants are in a position to assail the judgment passed by learned Single Judge.
4. Having
The State must adhere to limitation periods for filing appeals, and substantial delays require compelling justification for condonation.
The court reaffirmed that the Government must adhere to the same limitation laws as all parties, emphasizing that delays must be justified with sufficient cause.
The court ruled that governmental entities must adhere to the same limitation periods as private litigants and cannot mechanically condone delays without sufficient cause.
Government agencies must provide sufficient justification for delays in legal filings; bureaucratic inefficiencies are not valid grounds for condonation of delay.
State bodies must provide substantial reasons for delay in legal filings, as administrative inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The court emphasized that administrative inaction does not justify delay in legal proceedings, and that adequate cause must be shown, especially by State authorities.
Administrative inefficiencies alone do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays, and government entities must demonstrate diligence in litigation.
The court established that the State must provide a reasonable explanation for delays in legal proceedings, as the law of limitation applies equally to all parties.
Sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be established; administrative inefficiencies are not valid grounds for extending time limits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
