JUDGMENT :

The matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint whatsoever regarding audio/visual quality.

2. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5348 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected refusing to interfere with the order dated 09.07.2016, passed by the respondent authority.

I.A.No.1575 of 2021

3. Admittedly, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred after inordinate delay of 687 days, as per the office report. However, in the instant application, the prayer has been sought for to condone the delay of 699 days.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that the reference of delay of 699 days, in place of 687 days, as pointed out by SR dated 26.02.2021, is due to inadvertence and therefore, the instant interlocutory application may be construed to consider for condoning the delay of 687 days on the basis of the ground stipulated therein.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the matter may be heard on merit also for consideration of condoning the delay.

5. But a serious objection to such submission has been made by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL by making submission that when the appeal is barred by limitation of 687 days and as such, before entering into the merit, the consideration may be given to the delay condonation application.

6. This Court, after considering the aforesaid submission, is of the view that before entering into the merit of the issue, it would be appropriate for this Court to consider the delay condonation application and in order to see the sufficient cause to condone the delay and in case of condonation of such delay, it would be appropriate to look into the merit of the issue.

7. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant writ petitioner has submitted that the delay of the period of 687 days may be condoned for the reason explained in the instant interlocutory application, wherein, it has been stated that the writ petitioner could not apply for certified copy of the impugned order in time due to communication gap and also due to Covid-19 from 18.03.2020 to 25.02.2021. The certified copy has finally been obtained on 17.02.2021.

The writ petitioner, since is poor and illiterate person and as such, he could not arrange money to file instant appeal in time and after arranging the money, the aforesaid appeal has been filed after delay of 687 days, therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the aforesaid ground as has been referred in the interlocutory application is sufficient ground to condone the delay and therefore, prayer has been made to allow the instant interlocutory application by condoning the delay, so that, the matter may be heard on merit.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL has submitted that the application filed for condoning the delay is not fit to be allowed rather it is fit to be dismissed on the ground that no sufficient ground has been mentioned, rather, no ground is there for consideration to treat the ground sufficient to condone the delay.

He submits that a vague statement has been made by making a statement as under paragraph-4 thereof, that due to communication gap, certified copy of the impugned order could not have been obtained. He further submits that so far as the ground taken about Pandemic Covid-19 is concerned, that is also not tenable rather it is misleading statement as because the order impugned has been passed on 12.03.2019 which is much prior to spread of Covid-19 which was in the month of March, 2020.

9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid ground, submiss