HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 434 of 2021 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellants-State and Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Service Single No. 6693 of 1999(Rajendra Kumar Tripathi versus State of U.P. through Secretary). 3. It is a belated appeal which is delayed about 679 days. Now, we proceed to consider the explanation offered by the appellant-State in its appeal for filling it belatedly. But before doing so, we may mention that the limitation for filing special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is thirty days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shivamma(dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969, we are required to see the explanation offered for extending the limitation period and condoning the delay in respect thereof, of course, it has been informed by the appellant- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Shukla State Of Up Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Ors. .....Appellant(s) Rajendra Kumar Tripathi .....Respondent(s) State that the judgment impugned has been complied with. 5. The appeal has been filed on 29.10.2021 challenging the aforesaid judgment/order dated 20.11.2019. There is a delay of 679 days. The explanation offered in this regard is that after receipt of the judgment impugned, the department vide its letter dated 9.9.2020 has made the payment of arrears but the direction for payment of interest at the rate of 6% as ordered by the writ court could not be complied which led to filing of the contempt petion bearing Contempt Petition No. 1832(C) of 2020 in which an order was passed on 3.11.2020 issuing notice to the appellant's counsel. Then the appellant requested the Standing counsel for legal opinion in the matter vide letter dated 6.1.2021 in respect of the contempt matter and it was given on 21.1.2021 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the legal opinion sought was only with regard to the contempt and not with regard to filing of the appeal against the judgment/order dated 20.11.2019. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this explanation has been made only to be rejected and it can not be a justification for the delay in filing of the appeal, specially when according to the appellant's counsel, legal opinion was given for filing of the appeal on 30.1.2020 yet the same was not filed till 29.10.2021. A plea has been taken about Covid pandemic which in fact set in March, 2020 but for the period prior to onset of covid pandemic i.e. 21.11.2019 till 14.3.2020, no explanation has been offered 8. The period of limitation for filing the appeal expired prior to onset of Covid-19 i.e. on 20.12.2019, therefore, the benefit of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition(Civil) No. 03 of 2020 and consequential orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions is not available to the appellant 9. The explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is not sufficient or satisfactory and only excuses have been putforth. The appellants have been negligent in filing of the appeal with such inordinate delay which cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the decision in Shivamma(supra), we find no reason to SPLAD No. 434 of 2021 2 condone the the delay. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected, consequently the appeal is also dismissed. November 20, 2025 kanhaiya SPLAD No. 434 of 2021 3 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench