[2026:RJ-JD:9164-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 79/2025

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Assistant Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Appellants Versus Smt. Badam Devi Gurjar W/o Shri Raju Lal Gurjar, Aged About 44 Years, V/c Gurjar (Sbc/mbc), R/o Pander, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, Presently Working As Cook In Government Ambedkar Boys Hostel Pander, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pulkeshwar Rajpurohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order (Oral)

19/02/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 625 days in filing the accompanied appeal. For the reasons stated hereinafter, this is not a fit case where discretion to condone the delay ought to be exercised.

2. The explanation for seeking condonation is totally mechanical and there seems to be no application of mind. No specific details or day to day explanation have been given as to why the matter remained pending.

3. For ready reference paras No.1 to 5 of the application are as below:

“1. That it is humbly submitted that the impugned order was passed on dated 30.01.2023.

2. That upon the receipt of the certified copy of the order 30.01.2023, the same was sent to the department for compliance of the same.

3. That thereupon, the department in consultation with the respective officer arrived at a decision of filing an appeal against the order dated 30.01.2023.

4. That in pursuance thereof, Officer-in-Charge was appointed by the department.

5. The Officer-in-Charge concerned approached in the Office of Additional Advocate General for doing the needful, initial draft of appeal was forwarded from the Office of Additional Advocate General prepared on the basis of material supplied. Subsequently, the department provided some more information regarding the controversy. Upon further discussion regarding the merits of the matter with the authorities and upon procuring the related material like some of earlier orders passed in regard to the controversy, a final draft of the special appeal was prepared and was forwarded to the department for the purpose of signing and swearing the pleading/affidavit.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State argues that the delay in filing the present special appeal is unintentional and bona fide. It is submitted by the counsel that the Officer-in-Charge concerned approached the Office of the Additional Advocate General to take necessary steps in the matter. Based on the material initially supplied by the department, a preliminary draft of the appeal was prepared and forwarded. Thereafter, the department furnished additional information relating to the controversy. Upon further deliberations with the concerned authorities regarding the merits of the case, and after procuring relevant documents, including earlier orders passed in connection with the issue, a final draft of the Special Appeal was prepared. The same was subsequently forwarded to the department for signing and swearing of the pleadings/affidavit. Therefore, the delay has been caused in filing the aforesaid appeal.

5. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the aforesaid. It is a settled position in law that delay confers crystallized rights in favour of a litigant by virtue of law of limitation. Delay and latches since result in freezing of the vested rights in a party, which seeks enforcement of the same, the said right cannot be taken away unless there is a sufficient cause shown by the party seeking condonation of delay.

6. No doubt in deserving cases, Courts are liberal to grant indulgence but instant is not a case of such kind.

7. H