JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :

The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No.6629 of 2017 by which the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa whereby and whereunder recovery of an amount of Rs.2,21,305 has been ordered from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner.

I.A. No. 5667 of 2020

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 397 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 5667 of 2020 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 397 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 the department came to know about the order passed by Hon’ble Court dated 20.06.2019 when the writ petitioner filed his representation on 06.09.2019 for compliance of the direction of Hon’ble Court.

At paragraph 5 it has been stated that thereafter, the D.S.E., Garhwa vide letter dated 16.09.2019 requested to Director, Primary Education to give permission to file appeal.

At paragraph 9 of the interlocutory application it has been stated that the permission was granted on 23.09.2020 and thereafter the appeal has been filed.

Further, it has been stated at paragraph 12 that fearful environment of COVID-19 is also one of reasons due to which delay has been occurred in filing the appeal.

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 & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors. , (2014) 11 SCC 351 .

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 operat