RANCHI, India, March 1 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 29:

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. I.A. No.7376 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 486 days to appeal against the learned Single Judge's judgment and order dated 8th February, 2023 by which the learned Single Judge, after setting aside the order dismissing the 1st respondent for 22 days of absence, directed his reinstatement without any back wages.

3. This appeal was instituted after 486 days and in the meanwhile, on the ground of pendency of this appeal or on the ground that filing of this appeal was in contemplation, the appellant-State refused to comply with the direction for reinstatement issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. This was despite the fact that there was no interim relief or ad interim relief granted by this Court and the fact that for about 486 days from the expiry of the limitation period for filing this appeal, no appeal was filed. The I.A., time and again, asserts that there was no wilful omission on the part of the appellants, and the delay was caused "due to the procedural formalities". Paragraph 5 of the I.A. acknowledges that the counsel for the appellants "immediately informed the appellant-department" about the learned Single Judge's order dated 8th February, 2023. There is also an acknowledgement that this order was received in the department's office on 31st March, 2023.

4. The I.A. then says that the file was placed before the Senior Superintendent of Police but without disclosing when the same was placed. There is a statement that on 3rd April, 2023, the Senior Superintendent of Police "immediately directed for necessary action in terms of the direction given by the Hon'ble Court". This means that the Senior Superintendent of Police did not consider it necessary to appeal the learned Single Judge's order but opined that it should be obeyed.

5. After that, an opinion was sought from the learned Advocate General only on 6th June, 2023, and the opinion was obtained on 25th August, 2023. At a minimum, the appeal should have been filed immediately thereafter. Still, there are statements that the file allegedly moved from table to table and that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 486 days.

6. The delay, apart from being inordinate, is not explained. The socalled explanation offered does not constitute any sufficient cause. Routine bureaucratic procedures are cited simply to create a facade of sufficient cause. There is a bold statement that "necessary steps have been taken for filing the appeal vigorously from the very date of receiving the information of pronouncement of the impugned judgment dated 8 th February, 2023". This statement is completely belied by the other statements in the I.A.

7. The affidavit that accompanies the I.A. is also grossly defective. Paragraph 3, which is the verification clause, is completely blank in a context of paragraphs that are said to be true to the affiant's knowledge or true to his information derived from the records. There is utmost casualness in filing this application for condonation of delay and expecting the Court to condone the inordinate delay.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqFqEY07m4xQkK98ky6h4%2BsI7ng521oaEpXPkEC887DjS&caseno=LPA/295/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010160302024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.