The law of limitation binds all parties, including the government, and requires reasonable explanations for delays in filing appeals.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The present appeal barred by 455 days’ seeks consideration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.6015 of 2019 decided on 19.09.2023.

2. The learned Single Judge has held that writ petitioner is entitled for fixation of pay while granting him step-up in terms of the said judgment along with all consequential arrears as the Writ petitioner had challenged the withdrawal of step-up in pay. While noticing the writ petitioner and corresponding employees who wereemployee in the Department of Police and only because they are posted in different Battalions, the entitlement was held out not to be denied as they had common seniority list in the same cadre, by the learned Single Judge.

3. The above facts have only been noticed for the purpose of dismissing the application for condonation of delay and therefore we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing on merits as such and this Court has examined the said aspect in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others Vs. Union of India & another, (2023) 10 SCC 531 relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“35.1. The law of limitation was founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice.

35.2 The expression “sufficient cause” is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against one another, the former would prevail.

35.3. It is upon the courts to consider the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay, and the length of delay is not always decisive while exercising discretion in such matters if the delay is properly explained. Further, the merits of a claim were also to be considered when deciding such applications for condonation of delay.

35.4 Further, a distinction should be drawn between inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on part of the government functionaries and the government counsel on record before the Reference Court.

35.5. The officer responsible for the negligence would be liable to suffer and not public interest through the State. The High Court felt inclined to take a pragmatic view since the negligence therein did not border on callousness.

36. Given these reasons, we do not consider discretion to have been exercised by the High Court in an arbitrary manner. The order under challenge had to be a clearly wrong order so as to be liable for interference, which it is not.”

4. The judgment was pronounced on 19.09.2023 and copy of the said judgment was applied on 03.10.2023 which was attested on 07.11.2023 and the appeal came to be filed by 06.12.2023, as per the averments made in the said application. The certified copy of the judgment was received on 12.12.2023 and was examined in the office and only referred to the H.P. Government for advice on 16.10.2024. Nothing has been mentioned as to what happened in 10 months with the Department as such. The Government directed re-examination and the matter was re-examined and submitted with the Government on 25.11.2024 and directions were issued to file LPA on 20.01.2025 which was done at the earliest. However, the delay as such, as noticed above, from December 2023 to October 2024 has not been explained by the Department in any manner.

5. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, it was held that law of limitation is founded on public policy and resultantly the appeal was allowed and the order condoning the delay as such of four years in filing of the appeal was set aside by holding that in the absence of any plausible/tangible explanation for long delay of more than four years in filing of appeal, there was no valid reasons to