ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 26.08.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 4053 of 2014, by which, the petitioner now dead, was appointed on the post of Routine Clerk on the basis of absorption made through Commission vide order dated 09.01.2014 has been cancelled and the writ petitioner (now dead) was allowed to work as Routine Clerk on contract basis on a fixed amount of Rs.16,188/-.

2. 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 he was appointed to the post of Routine Clerk by absorbing in service by order dated 9/1/2004 which was later on cancelled by order dated 21.01.2014.

3. The writ petitioner being aggrieved thereof has approached this court by filing this writ petition and the learned single judge on consideration of the fact that the Commission on its own wisdom absorbed the writ petitioner but cancelled such absorption without following the principle of natural justice and therefore vide order dated 26.08.2019, the aforesaid order has been quashed and the matter has been remitted back to the Commission to proceed De novo by way of providing full opportunity to the petitioner.

4. This case is barred by limitation since has been filed after delay of 227 days and, as such, the same is required to be dealt with first. This Court is to consider as to whether the explanation furnished in the interlocutory application can be said to be sufficient cause to condone the delay and, as such, after going through the stand taken therein it is evident that the reasons has been assigned as it would appear from paragraph 5 that the appellant, who was respondent in the writ petition, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, JPSC, in compliance with the judgment dated 26.08.2019 passed in the writ petition had issue an order as contained in memo number 437 dated 19/02/2020 cancelled the earlier office order dated 26/6/2014 and 10/3/2017 and had further issued a direction to issue a fresh show-cause to the petitioner communicating all relevant facts / documents. Accordingly, the explanation was sought for from the writ petitioner (now dead) vide letter No. 438 dated 19.02.2020. The writ petitioner (now dead) submitted his reply vide its letter dated 03.03.2020. The reason has been explained that due to surge in the COVID-19 pandemic, no decision could be taken by the JPSC and in meanwhile the original writ petitioner had died on 29/7/2020 and as such, the request was made on behalf of the wife of deceased employee for payment of the arrear of salary. The appellant, JPSC, thereafter, had sought for an opinion from the Law Department Government of Jharkhand as to what step is to be taken in the circumstances of death of the concerned employee. The opinion was given to pass a reasoned order, after the reply of the writ petitioner was received. Based upon the same, the decision was taken to file an appeal in view thereof the delay of 227 days has been caused in filing the appeal.

5. 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 is to consider the application of condonation of delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

6. 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 and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 351.

7. The Pr