[2025:RJ-JP:47455-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1077/2025 1. The Public Works Department, Jaipur Through The Chief Engineer, Through The Officer-In Charge Shri R.k. Sanadya Son Of Shri B.l. Sanadya, Executive Engineer (Construction), Public Works Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Construction Division-Ist), Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellants Versus 1. Bhag Chand Kumawat Son Of Shri Yad Ram, Through The Mahamandri, Public Works Department Employees Union, 42, Patel Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. The Judge Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sarita Choudhary on behalf of Mr. Suresh Kashyap HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the delay in filing the appeal has occurred on account of administrative reasons. 2. We find that the appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge after a period of 218 days. From the perusal of the application [2025:RJ-JP:47455-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1077/2025] filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is apparent that the contentions are wholly vague. It would be apposite to quote the contentions mentioned in para 2 as under: “2. That the impugned order was passed on 16.10.2024 and after obtaining the certified copy of the order, the matter was proceeded at various levels and due to administrative reasons and due to the time consumed in seeking opinion form various levels, final decision has been taken by the department for filing the special appeal and thereafter officer in charge of the case appointed. The officer in charge of the case has contacted in the office of Additional Advocate General, Jaipur for drafting/preparation of the appeal, thereafter the appeal has been drafted/prepared and same is being filed today.” 3. While the application also mentions of judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandramani reported in 1996 (3) SCC 132, we find that the Apex Court recently in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 has held as under: “262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law. 263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the [2025:RJ-JP:47455-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1077/2025] condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the list for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice. 264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.” 4. On merits, we have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge wherein, the order passed by the Tribunal has been upheld and a cost of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed on the department. Apparently, the appeal is only to save the concerned officers from depositing the cost. 5. Keeping in view the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs (supra), we do not find any reason to condone the delay. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the application for condonation of delay also stands dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/82