The judgment emphasizes the importance of demonstrating sufficient cause and bona fide motive in delay condonation applications, highlighting the impact of inaction and negligence on the rights of the parties and the duty of the Court to exercise discretion judiciously.

ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2126 of 2010 by which the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega whereby and whereunder the pay scale granted to the petitioner in Graduate Trained Pay Scale on 01.01.1996 has been cancelled and order for recovery of excess amount has been made.

I.A. No. 415 of 2021

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 391 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 415 of 2021 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 391 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 paragraph 4 is that after the impugned judgment was passed in the writ petition on 29.07.2019 and after getting the knowledge of the judgment, the same was examined and it was sent to the concerned Department for vetting and it was decided to prefer appeal against the judgment.

At paragraph 5 it has been stated that thereafter the judgment was sent for legal opinion and after obtaining the same, permission from the department concerned was sought due to which there has been some delay in filing the present appeal.

Further, it has been stated at paragraph 7 that there was corona outbreak which pulled breaks on the process of the department to make decision and file this appeal and once there was some relaxation given from the Government, certified copy was obtained on 24.06.2020 and the delay occurred because of corona.

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

The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. vs. 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. Ramachandr