Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(S) No. 5067 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners (respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein) has been disposed of by setting aside the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Director, Employment and Training, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand and they have been held entitled for all the benefits in view of grant of second MACP in the year 2013.

2. Since the present appeal is barred by limitation, it is appropriate to first consider the application filed on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of delay.

I.A. No. 6529 of 2025

3. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants/applicants seeking condonation of delay of 328 days in filing the present appeal. However, as per the Registry, the delay is of 339 days.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant department came to know about the impugned judgment in its review meeting held on 13.03.2024 for verification of pay fixation of the writ petitioners and subsequent thereto, the file was put before the establishment section of the department on 14.03.2024 for taking decision to file Letters Patent Appeal in the present matter. Thereafter, the file was endorsed to the Assistant Director, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand on 19.03.2024 for taking high level decision regarding filing of Letters Patent Appeal.

5. It is further submitted that on 18.04.2024, the file was endorsed to the Director, Employment and Training, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand with a proposal to forward the file to the learned Advocate General, through the Secretary of the department for his opinion regarding possibility of filing of Letters Patent Appeal. The file was then put up before the Secretary of the department for the said purpose and thereafter on the same day, the Secretary, endorsed the file to the learned Advocate General for obtaining his opinion with respect to filing of appeal in the present case.

6. It is contended that on 24.04.2024, the learned Advocate General advised the department to file appeal, whereafter the file was endorsed to the Deputy Director for obtaining approval to endorse the file to the concerned lawyer for preparing statement of facts. The file was then endorsed to the Director on 06.05.2024.

7. It is also submitted that the grounds of appeal were prepared on 15.05.2024 and thereafter the file was placed before the Deputy Director on 15.05.2024 for obtaining approval of Departmental Secretary, pursuant to which the file was placed before the Director/Secretary on 16.05.2024 for the said purpose and also to accord approval for authorizing a competent officer to file Letters Patent Appeal.

8. It is argued that on 17.05.2024, the department authorised a competent authority for filing of memo of appeal challenging the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5067 of 2018. Thereafter, series of discussions were held in the appellant department with respect to the implication of the impugned judgment. Finally, on getting approval from the department, the appeal was filed on 21.08.2024.

9. It is further argued that the delay in filing the appeal has occasioned due to the reasons beyond the control of the appellants which is neither intentional nor deliberate and as such the same ma