2026:JHHC:14428-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.83 of 2025 With I.A. No.13497 of 2024 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. .......... Appellants. -Versus- 1. Shiv Kumar Singh, son of Late Gajadhar Prasad Singh, resident of Sabitri Bhavan, Gullibhattha, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District- Sahibganj. 2. Mahesh Prasad Sharma, son of Alekh Deo Sharma, resident of c/o Prabhu Prajapati, 56 Set, Doranda, Lakhsmi Para, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I For the Respondents: Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No.05 Date: 12.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No.13497 of 2024 seeks condonation of delay of 153 days in instituting the Letters Patent Appeal. 3. In the original I.A. and affidavit accompanying the same there were hardly any reasons which could be construed as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, an opportunity was granted to file a supplementary affidavit. 2026:JHHC:14428-DB 2 4. Though a long supplementary affidavit has been filed, again, there are hardly any reasons which could be construed as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the supplementary affidavit seeks to explain the steps taken within 30 days of the passing of the impugned order, given the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even the steps taken antecedent to the expiry of the limitation period are relevant. On perusing the supplementary affidavit, however, it is apparent that no steps were taken. 6. In this case, the learned Single Judge’s order is dated 11th June, 2024. There is no clarity on when such order was received. However, a copy of this order was sent to the department only on 10th July, 2024. This means that during the period of 30 days, no steps were taken. 7. The affidavit states that opinion from the Finance Department was obtained on 6th August, 2024 and the Law Department on 22nd August, 2024. After that there are routine averments of preparing of the draft grounds having them vetted and the files moving from one table to the other. 8. Here, we are concerned with filing an LPA against an order directing that some individuals be given the benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP). Still, as a matter of routine, statements have been made about formulating draft grounds, getting them approved from officer to officer and then filing the appeal. Such 2026:JHHC:14428-DB 3 grounds, apart from being unverifiable, cannot constitute sufficient cause. 9. In the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another, (2012)3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that law of limitation binds everybody equally including Government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. Despite this decision, as of routine, appeals are filed after delay and the delay is sought to be explained precisely on the ground of tardy bureaucratic procedure. 10. Incidentally, even in Post Master General and Others (Supra), the Courts had granted an additional opportunity to file a better affidavit by placing adequate material. However, no material was placed to explain the delay in not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The dates indicated showed that there was a delay at every stage, and except for mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decisions taken thereon, there was no explanation as to why such a delay was occasioned. 11. The I.A., the affidavit accompanying the I.A. and the supplementary affidavit in the present matter are not different. The chronology of the movement of the file has been set out, despite the fact that, in the year 2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that this kind of inherited bureaucratic methodology 2026:JHHC:14428-DB 4 cannot be accepted as good and sufficient cause for explaining the delay. 12. Besides, as noted earlier, all that the impugned order has held is that the benefits of the 3rd ACP should be granted to the petitioners/respondents because the same was given to one Radhika Raman Prasad by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.14518 of 2013. 13. In fact, relying on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Radhika Raman Prasad, even the petitioners’ claim for 2nd ACP benefit was accepted in W.P.(S) No.1569 of 2006 and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld in L.P.A. No.504 of 2017. 14. For all the above reasons, we dismiss the I.A. seeking condonation of delay. 15. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal will not survive, and is hereby dismissed. 16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 12th May, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 13.05.2026