State cannot condone inordinate appeal delays via bureaucratic excuses; unexplained periods and administrative lethargy fail sufficient cause test, binding government to limitation laws equally.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J. :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2686 of 2016 whereby the notification dated 23.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand has been quashed/set aside with an observation that the writ petitioner (the respondent herein) will be entitled to all consequential benefits.

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. 1063 of 2025

3. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants/applicants seeking condonation of delay of 289 days in filing the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the information with regard to passing of the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2024 came to the knowledge of the concerned department on 12.06.2024. The file pertaining to the present case was thereafter put up by the Administration Officer before the Under Secretary on 23.09.2024 for further necessary action. The Under Secretary, then made his endorsement on 01.10.2024 to take legal opinion in the matter.

5. It is also submitted that the Principal Secretary of the department accorded his approval on the said endorsement on 04.10.2024 and the file was sent to the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand which was then marked to the office of the Advocate General on 07.10.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the file pertaining to the present appeal was received by the office of the Advocate General on 18.10.2024 and on the same date, the opinion was given to file the appeal. Accordingly, the file was sent back to the Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand. On 21.10.2024, the file was put up for sending the matter to the retainer for preparation of grounds of appeal. The retainer thereafter prepared the grounds of appeal and submitted it to the department which was put up for approval vide notesheet dated 23.10.2024. After according approval vide notesheet dated 28.10.2204, the file was sent to the Law Officer for filing the appeal.

7. It is also submitted that the file was thereafter forwarded to the concerned Law Officer to prepare the memo of appeal against the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2024. Though the appeal was drafted by the Law Officer, however the pleadings of the writ proceeding were required. After making the entire writ court proceedings available to the concerned Law Officer, the appeal was filed on 12.11.2024.

8. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that though considerable delay occurred in filing the present appeal, however the same cannot be said to be inordinate as some time was consumed at different levels in the concerned department. Since the said delay in filing the present appeal is primarily attributed to the procedural formalities, the same may be viewed leniently and the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal may be allowed.

9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that no cogent ground has been made out in the present application seeking condonation of delay. The writ petitioner, who has superannuated from service way back on 31.08.2016, is made to suffer du