THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.1175 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri G. Prasanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the appellants and Sri S. Girimoji Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking to condone the delay of

488 days in filing the appeal.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on paragraph No.5 of the I.A. affidavit which assigns the reasons for condonation of delay. The said paragraph No.5 reads thus:

“5. It is submitted that the Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 19.04.2023, however, we came to know about the order dated 13.07.2023, immediately an application for seeking certified copy was filed on 03.11.2023, a copy was made ready on 09.11.2023, and was delivered on 13.11.2023, immediately the file was processed has to whether an appeal shall be filed or not and on the competent authority deciding to file an appeal. The appeal has been prepared and the same is being presented.

Thus, there is a delay 488 days.”

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner opposed the prayer by contending that the source of knowledge of impugned order dated 19.04.2023 has not been disclosed. Delay has not been properly explained. Apart from this, it is submitted that the writ petitioner prayed for a relief for granting her benefit of absorption in Grade-II Hindi Pandit with effect from 01.08.2008. The main contention of the writ petitioner that she was subjected to discrimination and step motherly treatment qua other employees who were junior to her and subsequently appointed namely Sri Khaja Nizamuddin and Sri K. Balaraju was considered by learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge rightly opined that the so-called ban on absorption cannot be a ground to deprive the writ petitioner from the fruits of absorption because withstanding such ban, aforesaid two employees were absorbed. For this reason, learned Single Judge rightly granted benefit to the writ petitioner.

5. We have heard on I.A. at length.

6. We find substantial force in the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner that the reasons mentioned in paragraph No.5 extracted above are sketchy in nature. Learned Single Judge had passed the impugned order on 19.04.2023. In paragraph No.5, no reasons are assigned as to how the impugned order came to the knowledge of the Department only on 13.07.2023. In other words, the period between the date of passing of impugned order and the knowledge of the order i.e. 13.07.2023 has not been explained. The source of knowledge of the impugned order is very relevant fact for the purpose of deciding the question of condonation of delay. Thereafter also, the Department has not given sufficient details with accuracy and precision which explains the delay.

Thus, in our judgment, ‘sufficient cause’ is not shown in the I.A.

7. Accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is rejected. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ ____________________

RENUKA YARA, J Date: 10.04.2025 Myk/Tsr THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.1175 of 2024 (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Date: 10.04.2025 myk/tsr