Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR
State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Shahdeo Paswan, son of Badhan Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent appeal is directed against the order dated 08.06.2022 passed in W.P(S) No.2538 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition has directed the State-authority (appellants herein) to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) It is pleaded that the writ petitioners were appointed since 1993, 1994 and 1996 respectively and working for more than ten years in the office of the respondents concerned.
(ii) It is specific case of the petitioners that from the date of appointments, they are working to the full satisfaction of their controlling authorities, wherever they were posted. In the year 2011, a written examination was conducted on 31.7.2011 for appointment of Grade-IV posts. The petitioners participated in the examination and upon publication of results, all the petitioners were called for interview, but the sa
The court ruled that delays in filing appeals by government entities must be justified by adequate reasons, emphasizing that procedural inefficiencies do not equate to 'sufficient cause' under law.
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals.
A comprehensive understanding of delay condonation necessitates showing bona fide reasons and adequate justification, especially for governmental appellants, with established precedents reinforcing t....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied, and that any request for condonation of delay must be supported by a sufficient and reasonable explanation, which was not met in thi....
The court ruled that an inordinate delay in filing an appeal requires a sufficient explanation, and negligence or lack of bona fides can lead to dismissal of the application for condonation.
The law of limitation is to be strictly enforced, and parties, including the government, must provide sufficient cause for any delay in filing appeals; negligence or lack of bona fides will not justi....
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay must demonstrate sufficient cause, with negligence and lack of bona fides leading to dismissal.
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides.
Sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals; lack of diligence and negligence is crucial for the court's discretion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
