The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause to condone delay in filing appeals, emphasizing the importance of bona fide motive, inaction, and negligence in considering delay condonation applications.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 565 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed declining to interfere with order as contained in memo no. 136 ( fof/k ) dated 25.03.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand by which the claim of the petitioner was rejected denying the salary for 22 months i.e., from March, 2005 to December, 2006.

I.A. No. 7273 of 2021

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 853 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 7273 of 2021 has been filed for condoning such delay.

3. A supplementary affidavit to I.A. No. 7273 of 2021 has also been filed on behalf of writ petitioner-appellant supplementing the reason assigned in I.A. No. 7273 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.

The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been given at paragraph 3 of the Interlocutory Application No. 7273 of 2021 is that delay is not deliberated on the part of the appellant but it is due to ignorance of law.

Further, ground has been taken at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit, to the effect that the petitioner was not aware of the law with respect to filing of appeal and was facing financial crisis as well and further the appellant had lost his confidence over his case but later on he was self-motivated to file appeal before this Court, which caused delay of 853 days in preferring this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay stating that reasons assigned in the Interlocutory Application as also Supplementary Affidavit to the Interlocutory Application is not sufficient.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

8. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351.

The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that:

“A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law.”

In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much l