IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Smt. Sita Gwala, w/o Pramod Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A No. 321 of 2021
Decided on : 03-08-2023
Delay Condonation - Service Matter - Limitation Act - Section 5
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of a 424-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal, citing illness and lack of knowledge about the court order. The appellant's plea was based on a service matter related to her engagement as a Para Teacher under Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant's reasons for delay in filing the appeal to be implausible and unacceptable. It also noted that the appellant failed to make a prima facie case for interference in the service matter.
Issues: The issues involved the delay condonation application and the appellant's plea for interference in a service matter related to her engagement as a Para Teacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that sympathy cannot be the basis for a court order and that the appellant did not have a legal vested right to continue in service, thus not warranting interference in the matter.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
JUDGMENT :
L.P.A No. 321 of 2021 with I.A No. 7185 of 2021
The writ petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 3rd January 2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2484 of 2015 is before us in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed with a delay of 424 days seeking condonation for which I.A No. 7185 of 2021 has been filed.
3. In this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act the appellant has stated as under:
5. That it is stated and submitted that the treatment of the appellant was going on till 10.3.2020, when she recovered from illness and the doctor adviced her that now she is well and fit for wandering either and thither then she came at Ranchi and contact her advocate and asked about her case then she found that her case has been dismissed on 03.01.2019 one year ago.
6. That it is stated that the appellant told her advocate for obtain certified copy of the order there after covid 19 pendemic came and lockdown was started since 22.3.2020 due that reason she could not took certified copy of the order dated 03.01.2019.
7. That it is stated and submitted when start unlockdown, the appellant came at Ranchi in month of September 2021 and contact to Mr. Sarvendra Kumar advocate and she got advice to file L.P.A against the order dated 03.01.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2484/2015.
8. That the appellant on 18.09.2021 applied for certified copy of order dated 03.01.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2484/2015 and it was made on 27.09.2021 thereafter it was supplied after two days i.e. on 30.09.2021 to the advocate clerk same has been handed over to the appellant on Monday i.e on 04.10.2021.
9. That it is stated and submitted that the appellant with certified copy of impugned order again contact to Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Advocate for filing L.P.A on 05.10.2021 thereafter Durga Puja vacation was started and opening day the Memo of appeal was made affidavit and filed it.
10. That it is stated and submitted that delay in filing in appeal is not willful intention of the appellant because she was under bed rest on advice of the Doctor due to her illness.”
4. Having considered the aforesaid reasons disclosed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 424 days, we have formed a prima-facie opinion that the appellant has failed to put forth a plausible and acceptable explanation for condoning the delay.
5. The appellant approached the writ Court with the following prayers:
And/or
Be pleased to pass such other order/s to which your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”
6. The whole case of the appellant is based on the office order dated 26th June 2006 by which she was permitted to tender her joining in Utkramit Middle School, Hardala at Gamharia, subject to approval by the District Superintendent of Education. The order passed by the District Superintendent of Education on 17th November 2006 vide Annexure-9 forms part of the present Letters Patent Appeal in which the approval accorded by the Block Education Extension Officer has not been affirmed by him but this order of the District Superi
The legal principle established is that sympathy cannot be the basis for a court order, and a party must demonstrate a prima facie case for interference in a service matter.
An application for condonation of delay must provide a valid and justifiable explanation for the delay, and vague or misleading statements in the affidavit will not suffice.
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained, and inaction prior to the pandemic does not qualify for condonation under the Limitation Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.