Vague bureaucratic delay explanations lack sufficient cause for condoning 193-day appeal delay, particularly where prejudice to superannuated employee outweighs State's interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel-II for the State-applicants/appellants.

2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 193 days in instituting an appeal against learned Single Judge’s order dated 03.05.2023.

3. The reasons stated in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the interim application are the usual reasons which inspire no confidence whatsoever. Para-4 vaguely states that the matter was considered by the department, and it was decided to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. Para-5 states that matter was put up for approval before the competent authority on 15.06.2023 and after the competent authority granted its approval on the same day, the matter was sent to the learned Advocate General to approve filing of the appeal on 19.06.2023. Para-6 states that the file was sent to the retainer of the department for preparing grounds of appeal, and thereafter the file was transferred to the counsel for preparing the memo of appeal. This appeal memo was drafted and sent to the department for approval; upon approval, the appeal was filed on 30^th November 2023.

4. The application is blissfully vague, and crucial dates have been omitted.

One of the grounds stated is that the delay was due to procedural technicalities, and it was not deliberate. The second is that the appellants are Government functionaries having several layers, and this “consumes much time”. Finally, the application stated that “important questions of law and facts are involved in this appeal” and the appellants have a good case and every chance to succeed in this appeal.

5. Regarding the above grounds, we note that this is a matter in which a penalty of a 2% cut in the pension has been awarded against the respondent-employee.

6. This Court, in its judgment and order dated 1^st December 2025, disposing of L.P.A. No. 725 of 2023, in similar circumstances, found fault with the State’s action primarily because the notice issued to the delinquent employee was issued with a closed mind and there was pre- judgment of the issues. There is no significant difference between the two cases. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that this decision was delivered on 1^st December, 2025, i.e., after the institution of the present petition and the application for condonation of delay.

7. On cumulative consideration of all the above circumstances, we do not think that sufficient cause has been shown in this matter to condone the delay of 193 days. Even otherwise, we find that the respondent has already superannuated on 30.11.2014; therefore, the prejudice to the respondent, if we were taking a liberal view in this matter, would far exceed the prejudice, if any, that will occasion to the State. The impugned order has merely directed the State to pay the respondent 2% of the pension which was deducted. Possibly, on the ground of pendency of this appeal, the direction issued by the Learned single judge is still not complied with by the appellant State. This would have aggravated the prejudice to the senior citizen who, after a long battle, secured restoration of 2% cut in his pension.

8. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this application. Consequently, the accompanying appeal also stands dismissed.