The judgment emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a bona fide motive and sufficient cause for delay condonation, highlighting that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2346 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the part of the order by which the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 30.06.2003 by which the order dated 22.01.1996 has been withdrawn whereby the writ petitioner who was posted as a Head Clerk had subsequently been designated as Section Officer, has been questioned.

I.A. No. 7939 of 2022

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 1386 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 7939 of 2022 has been filed for condoning such delay.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 1386 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. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.

5. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application at paragraphs-5 & 6 is that the order was passed on 18.11.2016 and the appellant after retirement was residing at Ranchi and at Delhi along with his son and the certified copy of the order was obtained by the counsel on 16.02.2017. The ground has been taken that as the appellant was not in Ranchi, as such, was not aware of the said order and finally in the month of July, 2018, the appellant came to Ranchi and thereafter he came to know about the said order.

At paragraphs-7 & 8 it has been stated that thereafter, the appellant discussed the matter with his friends and after coming to know that his friends have challenged the order dated 30.06.2003 before this Court and this Court had set aside the said order and directed the State Authorities to restore the pay scale of Section Officer to the petitioner of that case, has contacted his counsel who in turn had advised him to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2020, the appellant had handed over the documents and fund for preferring the appeal.

At paragraph 9 of the interlocutory application it has been stated that the appeal was drafted but meantime COVID-19 pandemic burst out in the country and due to the National Lock Down imposed in the country, the appeal could not have been filed. Thereafter, when some relaxation was allowed in the lock down, the instant appeal was filed on 16.10.2020.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants 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 is 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 an