JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 22.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 825 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the decision of the Administrative Authority as contained in letter dated 04.08.2009 has been quashed holding the writ petitioner entitled for salary of Headmaster from the date of his entitlement, i.e., on completion of seven years as Headmaster.

I.A. No. 1589 of 2021

2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 534 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A. No. 1589 of 2021.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 534 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.

4. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after coming to the knowledge of order passed by this Court, copy of the order was obtained and it was decided to prefer Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. It has been stated that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the appellants could not file the Letters Patent Appeal in time. However, in the meantime, it has barred by 534 days and as such, the delay has been caused which according to the appellants is not intentional rather on account of procedural and taking final decision some extra time has been consumed by the appellant.

6. The State-appellants, therefore, has prayed to condone the delay.

7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand has vehemently argued that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.

8. Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, who has appeared being called upon by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and has submitted that the limitation is not fit to be condoned since no sufficient ground has been assigned as would be evident from the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application filed for condonation of delay which is of 534 days.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 v. State of Haryana, (2014) 11 SCC 351.

12. 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