APHC010309962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX WRIT APPEAL NO: 1262 I.A.No.2 of 2025 Between: 1. P RAVI SHANKAR, S/O. P.V. RAMANA, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.55-740, OLD VENKOJIPALEM, SANJAY GANDHI COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM 530022 2. S.SRINU, S/o. S KANNAYYA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.282 R.M.COLONY, KANITHI COLONY, VADAPUDI, 530046. 3. V.APPALARAJU, S/O. V.RAJU, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.616 MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530017. 4. S.MANIKANTA, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.65-1-419/C, SRIHARIPURAM GAJUWAKA VISHAKHAPATNAM. 1. THE HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER P LIMITED, GANDHIGRAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 4. N.A.G.YARAHALU, S/O. N.APPALA NAIDU, YADAVA JAGGARAJUPETA, VADDALPUDI, VISHAKHAPATNAM 530046. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX I.A. No.2 OF 2025 IN / AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1262 of 2025 P RAVI SHANKAR, S/O. P.V. RAMANA, AGED 37 YEARS, 740, OLD VENKOJIPALEM, SANJAY GANDHI COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM 530022 . S KANNAYYA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.282 R.M.COLONY, KANITHI COLONY, VADAPUDI, VISHAKHAPATNAM V.APPALARAJU, S/O. V.RAJU, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.616 MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530017. S.MANIKANTA, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O. 419/C, SRIHARIPURAM GAJUWAKA VISHAKHAPATNAM. ...APPLICANTS / APPELLANT(S) AND THE HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD, GANDHIGRAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER P & A, HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED, GANDHIGRAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. YARAHALU, S/O. N.APPALA NAIDU, YADAVA JAGGARAJUPETA, VADDALPUDI, VISHAKHAPATNAM 530046. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3575] P RAVI SHANKAR, S/O. P.V. RAMANA, AGED 37 YEARS, 740, OLD VENKOJIPALEM, SANJAY GANDHI . S KANNAYYA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.282-24/1, VISHAKHAPATNAM V.APPALARAJU, S/O. V.RAJU, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.616-38, S.MANIKANTA, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O. 419/C, SRIHARIPURAM GAJUWAKA VISHAKHAPATNAM. APPELLANT(S) GANDHIGRAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING A, HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF YARAHALU, S/O. N.APPALA NAIDU, YADAVA JAGGARAJUPETA, VADDALPUDI, VISHAKHAPATNAM 530046. 2 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 5. K.ANIL KUMAR, S/O. K.SOMESH SEKHAR RAO, AGED 31 YEARS, D.NO. 19-26/8, SECTION-ILL, SAI MANDAVA NAGAR, NAIDUTHOTA, VISHAKHAPATNAM 530047. 6. G.N.VIJAY KUMAR, S/O. G SUDHAKAR, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.65-42/35/9, KOTHAKANAKKAVANIPALEM, GAJUVAKA, VISHAKHAPATNAM 530011. 7. K.ANAND, S/O.K.NOOKARAJU, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.63- 126, BURMA COLONY, SRIHARIPURAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM. 8. B.RAJA RAMESH, S/O. B.DHARMA RAO, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 11-139, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530026. 9. B.YAMINI NAGA LAKSHMI, D/O. B PAPA RAO, AGED 23 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.399-157/2, TENNETI NAGAR MURALI NAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM 530007. 10. S.JAGADISH, S/O. S.JAGGAPPA, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.65- 1419/C, SRIHARIPURAM, GAJUWAKA, VISHAKHAPATNAM. RESPONDENTS NO 4 TO 10 /PETITIONERS NO 1 TO5, 8 AND 9. (ONLY FORMAL PARTIES/NOT NECESSARY PARTIES ) ...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL & HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 17 .06.2026 Present : Mr.B.Abhay Siddanth Mootha, Advocate for appellants. Mr.P.Rajasekhar, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Orders Reserved on : 07.04.2026 Orders Pronounced on : 17.06.2026 Orders Uploaded on : 18.06.2026 3 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 The Court made the following order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) The applicants, who are arrayed as writ petitioners 6, 7, 10 and 11 in W.P.No.39871 of 2015 aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge dated 06.05.2022, filed the present application to condone delay of 1114 days in preferring the appeal. 2. In the writ petition, they inter alia challenged the action of 1st respondent-Hindustan Shipyard Limited in not fixing the correct pay scales and changing their category of employment without notice and sought suitable directions. M/s.Hindustan Shipyard Limited filed a counter-affidavit duly mentioning the factum of resignations submitted by said petitioners, acceptance of the same and pleaded that writ petition is liable to be dismissed against petitioners 6, 7, 10 and 11 / applicants herein. 3. Learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition with a direction to respondents to re-fix the scale of pay with all consequential benefit of arrears of pay to the petitioners, who are working in the respondent –organization till date and consider their promotion. 4. Alleging violation of order of learned Single Judge dated 06.05.2022, the applicants herein along with other writ petitioners filed C.C.No.2644 of 2022. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, against the order of learned Single Judge dated 06.05.2022, preferred W.A.No.620 of 2022 and a Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 11.02.2023 granted interim stay of Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 06.05.2022. 4 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 5. Subsequently, Contempt Case No.2644 of 2022 was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.05.2024. Thereafter, applicants herein filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in C.C.No.3644 of 2022 with a prayer to set aside order of dismissal of Contempt Case and to condone delay in filing set aside application respectively. However, on 28.03.2025, they withdrew the said applications. Be that as it may. 6. In the instant application, applicants sought to explain delay in filing the appeal, stating that order of the learned Single Judge has not been uploaded online till date and as such, applicants were not aware of contents therein. Further that they were informed by other writ petitioners / respondents 4 to 10 herein, who are continuing in service of Hindustan Shipyard Limited that writ petition was allowed and as such, applicants were also entitled to arrears of pay since date of joining. They also sought to project that delay occurred as copy of order was retained by other writ petitioners / respondents 4 to 10 herein and not furnished to them, on the pretext that it is required for negotiating with the management of Hindustan Shipyard Limited. Further that not being aware of the contents of the order, they joined with other petitioners and filed C.C.No.2644 of 2022. 7. From a conjoint reading of contents of affidavit filed in support of present application as also connected miscellaneous application, the version of applicants herein is to the effect that they were completely unaware of outcome of Writ Petition No.39871 of 2015 which was filed by them along with 5 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 respondents 4 to 10 herein, the said respondents have not even furnished a copy of order in writ petition and applicants therefore, could not take immediate steps for filing appeal against order of learned Single Judge. They also made some averments against their previous counsel, who, according to them, stated that he informed result of the case to respondents 4 to 10 herein as they were in touch with him and was under the impression that applicants herein are aware about orders of the Court. Applicants also sought to explain the circumstances under which they filed the other miscellaneous application seeking permission to engage the services of the present counsel on record. 8. Learned counsel for appellants herein made submissions to impress upon this Court that sufficient cause exists to condone the delay and accordingly prays to allow the application. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 made submissions with reference to detailed counter-affidavit and material annexed there to. It is his contention that applicants herein are well aware of the orders passed by Learned Single Judge, that they are even parties to C.C.No.2644 of 2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn. In spite of the same, applicants herein filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 on 24.10.2024 seeking to condone the delay in representing the set aside petition and to set aside the order of dismissal in Contempt Case. He submits that even said applications were dismissed as withdrawn on 28.03.2025 and after three months, appeal was filed on 24.06.2025, without offering any proper explanation for the delay. He 6 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 submits that no case is made out for condoning extraordinary delay of more than three years and that apart, the conduct of applicants clearly indicates that they are not vigilant and having not reserved any right with reference to their claims raised in the writ petition at the time of submitting the resignations, they filed the present appeal after cessation of employee-employer relations. He submits that applicants are not entitled to any indulgence and application in question deserves to be dismissed. 10. This Court has considered submissions made by both sides and perused material on record. 11. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that there is no dispute that applicants herein submitted resignations in the year 2021 and same were accepted. This crucial aspect was specifically stated in counter-affidavit of 1st respondent. It is not known as to whether applicants herein, who submitted resignations informed their previous counsel about resignations, yet their interest in continuing / pursuing writ petition. It is also not their case that they informed other writ petitioners expressing their interest to pursue writ petition, in spite of submitting their resignations. 12. On the contrary, their stand appears to be that they were not kept informed about the developments ie., disposal of writ petition restricting relief only to those petitioners who are working in Shipyard as on the date of passing of order by Learned Single Judge. In a way, they are trying to portray that they are kept in dark, respondents 4 to 10 herein had not disclosed 7 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 correct information to them and that they were effected by reason of omissions and commissions on the part of said respondents. Learned counsel for applicants made sincere efforts to satisfy this Court that reasons urged are sufficient to condone delay in filing appeal. However, this Court is not persuaded to accept the same. 13. Firstly, reason sought to be projected that a copy of order was not uploaded cannot be treated as a sufficient cause which prevented applicants from filing an appeal, within a reasonable time, if not within the period of limitation. Having filed a writ petition, it is incumbent on the part of applicants to be in constant contact with their Advocate and seek information about developments in their case, from time to time. They cannot be allowed to simply say that they are under an impression that other petitioners are following up with Advocate or that they were not kept informed or mis- informed about the cause in which they are interested. 14. Nextly, it is admitted case of applicants herein that they joined respondents 4 to 10 and together filed C.C.No.2644 of 2022. Even at that stage, they are expected to ascertain from learned counsel as to why Contempt Case is being filed and request him to furnish a copy of learned Single Judge’s order, if it is not really provided to them by other petitioners / respondents 4 to 10 as alleged. No such attempt appears to have been made. When basis for filing of Contempt Case is non-implementation of order dated 06.05.2022, nothing prevented applicants herein to secure a certified 8 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 copy. Having not made any such attempt, applicants seek to explain delay on the premise that order was not uploaded online, which is far-fetched and cannot be appreciated. 15. On an appreciation of submissions made, this Court has no option except to come to a conclusion that applicants herein, for reasons best known to them were not in constant contact with their earlier counsel on record and not vigilant in pursuing writ petition by giving appropriate instructions from time to time. 16. Even assuming for sake of arguments that respondents 4 to 10, have not informed applicants herein about outcome/order in W.P.No.39871 of 2015 all through, no specific averment was made as to when actually applicants herein came to know about result in writ petition. It is simply stated that on coming to know about withdrawal of Contempt Case, they filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay and setting aside order of dismissal dated 10.05.2024 in C.C.No.2644 of 2022. Said applications were filed on 24.10.2024, inter alia stating that Contempt Case was withdrawn by other petitioners under undue influence of management and without knowledge of applicants herein. However, they withdrew the said applications on 28.03.2025. Three months thereafter, the applicants filed appeal on 24.06.2025, but moved application to condone delay in filing appeal on 05.11.2025, which fortifies view of this Court that applicants are not vigilant in pursuing their cause. Reasons sought to be explained for delay in filing 9 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 appeal to the effect that order was not uploaded online or that a copy of it was not furnished by other writ petitioners / respondents 4 to 10 herein, is a lame excuse and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay of three years. 17. It is axiomatic that a liberal approach has to be adopted in condoning delay, yet it is not rule of thumb. In the absence of making out of a case or showing sufficient cause, Courts shall be loathe to condone huge delays, lest the object of statutes of limitation would be frustrated. 18. In Rajneesh Kumar & Another v. VED Prakash 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an order of High Court in a Civil Revision Application, wherein order passed by District Court condoning delay of more than 534 days in filing the appeal by the petitioners in the S.L.P., was set aside. In the said case, delay in preferring appeal was attributed to the Advocate who appeared for petitioners in Trial Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to appreciate the said cause and dismissed the S.L.P., in the following terms: “10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the Court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to 1 2024 INSC 891 10 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. “ 19. Reference to the judgments of Sali Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd.2 and Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. V. The Employees State Insurance Corporation3 was also made and Para No.12, which is contextual, reads as follows: “12. As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. V. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as under:- “The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura sub-veniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims.” (Emphasis supplied)” 20. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a recent case of Shivamma Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, 4 has held that courts should adopt a liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented approach but should not condone delay 2 (1993) 2 SCC 185 3 (1971) 2 SCC 860 4 2025 SCC OnLine 1969 11 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 attributable to negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides. Length of delay, it is held is instructive and not determinative. Sufficient cause has to be displayed by the litigant for condonation of delay in availing remedies. 20. In the light of conclusions recorded with reference to factual aspects and legal position, this Court is inclined to hold that applicants failed to show sufficient cause to condone the extraordinary delay of 1114 days in filing the instant appeal. 21. For the afore going reasons application I.A.No.2 of 2025 is rejected. Consequently, writ appeal itself stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed accordingly. (LISA GILL) (NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Date: 17.06.2026 BLV 12 IA_2_2025 in/and WA_1262_2025 HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA IA 2 OF 2025 IN / AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1262 of 2025 Date: 17.06.2026 BLV