(2026: JHHC: 17174-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 10567 of 2025 In L.P.A. 458 of 2025 1. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, having its office Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi ... … Appellants Versus Kanan Sinha, aged about 50 years, widow of Late Kamal Nayan Prasad, resident of Block No. C, Flat No. 301, Ganpat Palace, Dhumsa Toli, Ice Factory, Bahu Bazar, P.O. G.P.O, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ... … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 15.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This application seeks condonation of delay of 886 days in filing this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2022 disposing of W.P (S) No. 863 of 2020. 3. The application states that this matter relates to grant of compassionate appointment of a widow of a casual worker. 4. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay of 886 days. The initial paragraphs refer to the merits of the matter which cannot, always, be a consideration for condonation of delay of 886 days. 5. Paragraph-11 states that after a decision was reached to file an appeal, all documents were sent to the Advocate for preparing Memo of Appeal. The delay is then attributed to the preparation of the Memo of Appeal. (2026: JHHC: 17174-DB) 6. The decision to prefer an appeal, it is admitted, was reached only on 12.01.2025 when the impugned order was made on 10.08.2022. It is not the case of the applicant that they were unaware of the order. This inordinate delay between 10.08.2022 and 12.01.2025 is not at all explained. 7. Averments in the I.A. are casual, self-serving and unverifiable. Based upon such averments and the usual bureaucratic reasons, no case is made out for condoning this inordinate delay of 886 days. 8. Relying on the law laid down in the case of Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR 2024 SCC OnLine SC 48, Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 and several decisions of this Court and after applying the principles therein to the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that no case is made out to condone this inordinate delay of 886 days. The I.A. is therefore dismissed without any order for costs. 9. As a consequence, the accompanying appeal is also dismissed. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June, 15, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 17.06.2026