2025:JHHC:14766-DB -1 of 6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 112 of 2024 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO and PS- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. Director (Secondary Education), School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO and PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 5. District Education Officer, officiating beside Civil Court, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi 6. District Education Officer, PO and P.S-Dumka, District-Dumka 7. District Education Officer, Sahebganj, P.O. and P.S.-Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj 8. District Education Officer, Gumla, P.O., P.S. and District-Gumla ... ... Appellants Versus 1. Mrinal Kant Singh, aged about 58 years, s/o Late Jainendra Kumar Singh at present working as Instructor Vocational Education + 2, Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, PO + PS + Dist-Sahebganj 2. Rajiv Kumar, aged about 55 years, s/o Late Uday Pratap Singh, r/o Sai Niwas Vivekanand Path, Near Ram Krishna Ashram, JIO Phone, in front of Kalyani Enterprises PO+PS+Dist-Dumka. 3. Md. Aftab Alam, aged about 57 years, s/o Abdul Khalik, r/o 99, Yag Maidan, Bakmi Bandh Marg, District School, PO+PS+Dist.-Dumka 4. Subash Chandra, aged about 54 years, s/o Satish Chandra Pd. Sinha, r/o Ward No. 4, Bank Colony, C/7, P.S.-Pakur, PO + District- Pakur ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C.-II. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II. --------- 05/Dated: 09.06.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No. 8979 of 2024 in/and L.P.A. No. 112 of 2024 This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 240 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 11.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3894 of 2019. 2025:JHHC:14766-DB -2 of 6- 2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was communicated on 01.11.2023 to the applicant-Department and the file was then put up before the office of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand on 22.11.2023. 3. It is stated that the matter was forwarded by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand to the office of the Secretary to the Department and the noting was made on 23.11.2023 for putting the matter for approval. Thereafter, a decision was taken to prefer an Appeal against the impugned judgment. 4. It is also stated that the matter was also put up before the office of the Advocate General who approved the filing of the Letters Patent Appeal, and the file was then handed over to the conducting lawyer to prepare memo of appeal. It is stated that on account of procedural technicalities, and the applicants, being Government functionaries, having several layers of decision making, the delay in filing of the Appeal occurred and therefore, it may be condoned. 5. Admittedly, the period of limitation for preferring a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge is only 30 days from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The judgment was undoubtedly pronounced in the presence of the counsel for the applicants. It appears that even the application for issuance of certified copy was made on 16.04.2024 though the judgment was pronounced in August, 2023. In a very casual 2025:JHHC:14766-DB -3 of 6- manner, the file appears to have been moved from table to table leisurely and then the Appeal came to be filed. 6. This practice has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another1, wherein the Supreme Court held: “25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11-9- 2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8- 1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four months. 26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in 1 (2012) 3 SCC 563 2025:JHHC:14766-DB -4 of 6- prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.” (emphasis supplied) 7. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 8. The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.2, Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.3, Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & 2 (2022) 3 SCC 159 3 (2022) 2 SCC 327 2025:JHHC:14766-DB -5 of 6- Others4, Union of India & Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another5, and State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others6. 9. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR7, the Supreme Court held that it could not look into the merits of the matter as long as it is not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of long and inordinate delay; that it hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning gross delay of more than 12 years; length of delay is a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not; from the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation; once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his long inaction, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. It was reiterated while considering plea for condonation of delay, Court must not start with the merits of the main case and the Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides 4 (2021) 11 SCC 557 5 (2022) 9 SCC 263 6 (2022) 9 SCC 266 7 2024 INSC 262: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 2025:JHHC:14766-DB -6 of 6- of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It declared that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. 10. By allowing multiple people to deal with the question as to whether or not the judgment of the learned Single Judge is to be challenged, and without speeding up the process within the Department, it is not open to the applicants to file the appeal with inordinate delay and seek condonation of the same. 11. It is also brought to our notice that the connected LPAs being L.P.A. No. 158 of 2024 and batch have been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.06.2024. 12. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the inordinate delay of 240 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal and even on merits no relief can be granted. 13. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay being I.A. No. 8979 of 2024 as well as the Appeal being L.P.A. No. 112 of 2024 are both dismissed. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) APK/VK