AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 503 wordsI.A No. 4323 of 2024
This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 683 days in preferring L.P.A No. 245 of 2024.
Referring to the judgment in “Postmaster General v. Living media India Ltd.” (2012) 3 SCC 563, Mr. Kumar Sidharth, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that a casual approach of the State-respondent need not be overlooked and the statements made in I.A No. 4323 of 2024 do not provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 683 days.
In I.A No. 4323 of 2024 the applicant-State of Jharkhand has stated as under:
“5. That it is stated that the aforesaid order was communicated vide Letter No. 436 dated 14.02.2022 through the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and file was put up before the office of Sr. A.O. on 08.07.2022.
That it is stated that thereafter the aforesaid letter along with the Hon’ble High Court order was placed before the Office of Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand (Appellant No.-3) on 18.07.2022.
That it is stated that after the receiving of approval from the office of Appellant No.-3 regarding taking of necessary information from the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh; the same has been communicated to the said University on 26.08.2022.
That it is stated and submitted that after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, a decision was taken to prefer appeal against the impugned order.
That it is stated that thereafter it was observed that the grounds of appeal may be formulated and send to the Learned Advocate General for necessary action on 09.11.2022.”
On a glance at the aforesaid statements one can easily form an opinion that the appellants have prosecuted this matter in a casual manner. However, with a view to ascertain if delay of 683 days is not condoned would the State of Jharkhand suffer irreparable loss and injury, we have glanced through the decision of the writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 2278 of 2018.
Before the writ Court, the writ petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in “Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd.” (2021) 14 SCC 781 and “Md. Wase Khan v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” 2015 (3) JCR 368 (Jhr) to challenge the order passed by the respondent authority denying him arrears of salary and retiral benefits. The writ Court had also taken note of an order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6913 of 2017 filed by Karam Chand Mahato who was similarly situated to him and the order passed by this Court was complied by the respondent-State; a fact admitted in paragraph nos. 5 to 7 of the counter-affidavit.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and unsatisfactory cause shown by the State of Jharkhand for condoning the delay of 683 days, I.A No. 4323 of 2024 is dismissed.
L.P.A No. 245 of 2024
Consequent upon dismissal of I.A No. 4323 of 2024, L.P.A
No. 245 of 2024 is dismissed.