An application for condonation of delay must demonstrate plausible reasons; mere bureaucratic delays do not justify extending time limits for appeals.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order ofthe learned Single Judge passed in CWPOA No.1790 of 2020 decided on 07.10.2023, which is barred by 1 year 28 days. Resultantly, CMP(M) No.2035 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present LPA.

2. We are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause made out in the application as apparently the copy of the judgment was not even applied for over a year, as per the averments made in the application itself. It was applied on 21.10.2024 though having been passed on 07.10.2023 and it was delivered immediately on the same date and thereafter the same was vetted and filed on 4.11.2024. Apparently, the applicants were not interested in filing the appeal as such, they did not even apply for the copy of the judgment and there is nothing to show that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay.

3. It is settled principle of law that an application for condonation of delay filed by the State has to be given certain latitude, but the same does not mean that the State can sit back and not even take any steps to challenge the order, which is apparent in the present case.

4. The employee in question is a Class IV Baildar working in a Tribal area seeking her rights, as such, and therefore, we do not wish to call upon her to file a reply and entail the necessary expenses of litigation.

5. The principles have been laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.,(2010) 2 S.C.R. 1172 and Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr. , (2012) 3 SCC 563 . The same reads as under :

“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months.

26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plau