Government bodies and their instrumentalities are not entitled to automatic condonation of delay; administrative red tape and procedural delays do not constitute "sufficient cause" under the law of limitation.

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

I.A.No.01/2025 IN W.A.No.996/2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

1. This writ appeal filed against the order, dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.261 of 2020, wherein the learned single Judge by following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in a case of U.V.S.R. Prasad and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another [(2018(2) ALD 282 (DB)], allowed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner is entitled for counting the period from 01.03.1989 to 27.09.2007, as qualifying service for the purpose of pension notional fixation and other retirement benefits. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellant with a delay of 166 days.

2. The appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to condone the delay of 166 days in filing the present writ appeal.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- University, would submit that non-condonation of delay would cause irreparable injury to the University by enforcing an order that violates due process of law and financial norms and accordingly sought to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has raised a preliminary objection and sought to hear the delay condonation petition at first and requested to decide the same. Accordingly, the delay condonation petition in I.A.No.1 of 2025 is taken for consideration.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent vehemently opposed to condone the delay in the absence of sufficient cause to condone the delay. He further contends that the appellant failed to show any sufficient cause to condone the delay and the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed along with the delay petition are very vague and no proper reasons are stated. Accordingly, he requested to dismiss the delay condonation petition.

6. The learned counsel for 1st respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case of State of U.P. vs. Jai Singh and others (Special Appeal Defective No.276 of 2024) and would submit that the conduct of the appellants has to be taken into consideration for filing the writ appeal after filing the contempt proceedings. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted herein under:

“15. The indications made and the tenor of language used in the affidavit clearly suggest that the appellants have taken it for granted that irrespective of the quantum of delay and the conduct of the officers in taking orders passed by the Court casually, filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a mere formality and seeking condonation is a matter of right. Such conduct of the officers cannot be countenanced.

16. It is apparent that the things have started moving only after the respondents filed contempt case and the appellants were served with a notice in the contempt petition.

17. The attitude of the officers, in ignoring the orders passed by the Court till such time that notices in the contempt petition are issued, cannot be approved. On many occasions, despite issuance of notices in contempt petition, no action is taken and it is only when the directions are issued for personal presence that for the first time, the officers care