2025:JHHC:18385-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.400 of 2024 With I.A. No.972 of 2025 ----- Binod Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Ram Krishna Sharma, R/o Punjabi Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. Katras, District-Dhanbad. .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. 2. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. 3. The General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. 4. The Area Personnel Manager, Katras Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Salanpur Colliery, Katrasgarh, Katras, Dhanbad. 5. The Project Officer, Salanpur Colliery, Katrasgarh, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Katras, Dhanbad. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No.07 Date: 09.07.2025 1. I.A. No.972 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 580 days in filing the LPA challenging the judgment dated 5th December, 2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.5277 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge. 2. Though it is stated in the application for condonation of delay that the applicant is an aged person and that he was suffering from severe backache with cellubis of both knees and had difficulty in walking, we are of the opinion that the said reason assigned for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation for preferring the LPA, cannot be accepted. 2025:JHHC:18385-DB 2 3. Other plea raised by the applicant is that there is paucity of money for filing appeal. Since the applicant could have availed legal aid for preferring the LPA within time, we are also not inclined to entertain this plea. 4. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has not been shown by the appellant for condoning the said inordinate period of delay. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 5. Consequently, LPA is also dismissed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/Rohit