RANCHI, India, June 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 12:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No.13497 of 2024 seeks condonation of delay of 153 days in instituting the Letters Patent Appeal.

3. In the original I.A. and affidavit accompanying the same there were hardly any reasons which could be construed as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, an opportunity was granted to file a supplementary affidavit.

4. Though a long supplementary affidavit has been filed, again, there are hardly any reasons which could be construed as sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the supplementary affidavit seeks to explain the steps taken within 30 days of the passing of the impugned order, given the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even the steps taken antecedent to the expiry of the limitation period are relevant. On perusing the supplementary affidavit, however, it is apparent that no steps were taken.

6. In this case, the learned Single Judge's order is dated 11th June, 2024. There is no clarity on when such order was received. However, a copy of this order was sent to the department only on 10th July, 2024. This means that during the period of 30 days, no steps were taken.

7. The affidavit states that opinion from the Finance Department was obtained on 6th August, 2024 and the Law Department on 22nd August, 2024. After that there are routine averments of preparing of the draft grounds having them vetted and the files moving from one table to the other.

8. Here, we are concerned with filing an LPA against an order directing that some individuals be given the benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP). Still, as a matter of routine, statements have been made about formulating draft grounds, getting them approved from officer to officer and then filing the appeal. Such grounds, apart from being unverifiable, cannot constitute sufficient cause.

9. In the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another, (2012)3 SCC 563, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that law of limitation binds everybody equally including Government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. Despite this decision, as of routine, appeals are filed after delay and the delay is sought to be explained precisely on the ground of tardy bureaucratic procedure.

10. Incidentally, even in Post Master General and Others (Supra), the Courts had granted an additional opportunity to file a better affidavit by placing adequate material. However, no material was placed to explain the delay in not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The dates indicated showed that there was a delay at every stage, and except for mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decisions taken thereon, there was no explanation as to why such a delay was occasioned.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqEGyY4vyx78shXT21MiLQoRghNGssxRbCczbZHs98%2BcE&caseno=LPA/83/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010421852024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.