The applicant failed to substantiate grounds for condonation of significant delay in filing an application, despite referencing relevant legal precedents.

Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman MA No. 2730/2025 in OA No. 2443/2025(Condonation of delay)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1180 days in filing the Original Application.

3. The impugned order under challenge was passed on 19.06.2019. The statutory period of limitation of one year expired on 18.06.2020. Therefore, the Original Application ought to have been filed on or before 18.06.2020.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is liable to be excluded in computation of limitation in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. The present OA was filed on 24.05.2025 along with the instant application seeking condonation of delay. Even after excluding the period covered by the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is a delay of 1180 days.

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that sufficient explanation has been furnished in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the MA. He places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the application. He submits that the explanation offered in the said paragraphs is unsatisfactory. He further points out that during the period in question, the applicant has filed two other matters, namely OA No. 1578/2021 and OA No. 3807/2023. Therefore, the plea of the applicant that he was shattered by his transfer to Andhra Pradesh and by non-payment of salary cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay.

7. The applicant, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the MA, has made the following averments:

“5. That the Applicant submits that the Applicant was completely shattered by his transfer to Andhra Pradesh, Non-Payment of Salary and other Punitive Action by the Respondent, which had a telling effect on the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant could not act on the present Cause of Action. However, the Applicant kept on meeting the Officers of the Respondent, but without any avail. Indeed, the law is settled that in matters of seniority and promotion, the law of delay laches would apply strictly, as in such cases others are there who are affected. However, in the present case, there is no Private Individual who would be adversely affected and, therefore, the delay may be kindly condoned.

6. That not only this, the Applicant has also faced two frivolous Charge Sheets, which also disturbed the Applicant a great deal and he was not in a proper mental state to pursue the present Cause of Action. One of the Charge Sheets has resulted in the Penalty of Censure, which is under challenge before this Hon’ble Tribunal in a separate OA. Also the other Major Penalty Charge Sheet has also been challenged in another OA and the Hon’ble Tribunal has granted Interim Protection to the Applicant.”

The applicant has further averred in paragraph 4.3 of the OA as under:

“4.3 That the Applicant has been engaged with the Respondent in several Court Cases. Some of them are as follows:

1. OA No. 1786 of 2012; 2. OA No. 3908 of 2014; 3. OA No. 2097 of 2011;

4. OA No. 384 of 2009;

5. OA No. 2973 of 2010; 6. OA No. 2976 of 2010; 7. OA No. 1231 of 2010; 8. OA No. 2633 of 2010; 9. OA No. 3427 of 2014; 10. C.P. No. 54 of 2017; 11. OA No. 197 of 2015;

12. WP(C) No. 8556 of 2010;

13. OA No. 1578 of 2021;

14. Criminal Case in FIR No. 141 of 2004 of Inderpuri Police Station against Staff Union Members;

15. C.