A comprehensive understanding of delay condonation necessitates showing bona fide reasons and adequate justification, especially for governmental appellants, with established precedents reinforcing the importance of timely legal action.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.164 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, while disposing of the writ petition, direction has been given to the respondents to make payment of three months’ salary and hold the petitioner entitled for panel as well as statutory interest if there is delayed payment of G.P.F. on the part of the respondents.

I.A.No.9408 of 2024

2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 815 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.9408 of 2024.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 815 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. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after getting the impugned order dated 20.01.2020, it has been decided to challenge the same and accordingly, the file was transmitted to the Law Department. The Law Department thereafter making necessary paper works, forwarded the entire set of writ petition and affidavits along with order impugned to the Senior Standing Counsel. The concerned counsel of the Nigam prepared the memo of appeal and forwarded the same to the Law Department.

5. After receiving the file from the concerned Department, memo of appeal was affidavited and filed on 19.03.2021. Hence the aforesaid exercise consumed time and the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation, which according to the appellants is not intentional rather on account of procedural delay.

6. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-JBVNL, therefore, has prayed to condone the delay and has submitted that the reasons assigned in the instant interlocutory application are sufficient to condone the delay.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 .

10. 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, 1