The principle of delay and laches is essential in entertaining a writ petition, and a reasonable explanation for delay is required.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.7673 of 2019

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 85 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 85 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 7673 of 2019 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.522 of 2019

5. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.865 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro, by which the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of one annual increment, has been declined to be interfered with having assailed the same after inordinate delay of about 11 years.

6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that while working as Constable in the Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro, a departmental proceeding was initiated which was culminated into the order of punishment dated 27.11.2008.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of punishment, assailed the said order by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.865 of 2019.

The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that the order of punishment has been assailed after lapse of almost 11 years, has dismissed the writ petition by declining to interfere with the impugned decision of the administrative authority of inflicting punishing of withholding one annual increment, against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

7. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri & Others [(2015) 15 SCC 602].

According to the learned counsel, the fact of the said case is quite different to that of the fact of the given case since in that case the order of dismissal was challenged after inordinate delay but, in the instant case, withholding of one annual increment is under challenge which is having the recurring cause of action, therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition based upon the factual aspect of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri & Others (Supra), cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned A.C. to S.C.-I, appearing for the respondent – State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the contention which has been raised on behalf of the writ petitioner – appellant about non-applicability of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri & Others (Supra) merely because in the said case the issue of dismissal order was under consideration but the general principle of entertaining a writ petition is that the writ petition may not be entertained after lapse of reasonable period since, in the case in hand, the writ petition has been filed about lapse of almost 11 years, therefore, the learned Single Judge has taken the view of filing the writ petition after inordinate delay of almost 11 years and the view take by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error and, as such, the order impugned may not be interfered with.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants-State, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

10. The undisputed fact in this case is