Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20598-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 6825 of 2026 In / And L.P.A. No. 317 of 2026 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation), Water Resources Department, P.O., P.S. & District Dumka. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, P.O., P.S. & District Dumka. 6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, P.O., P.S. & District Sahibganj. ... Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Manne Lal Kamat, s/o Kantir Kamat, r/o Village - Dason, P.O. Tamuria, P.S. Lakhnour, District Madhubani, Bihar, Retired Correspondence Clerk, Minor Irrigation Division, Sahibganj. Petitioner/Respondent 2. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Senior Accounts Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ... Respondents/Proforma Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III For the Respondents: Mr Ashish Kumr Shekhar, Advocate Mr Pankaj Choudhary, Advocate --------- 03/Dated: 13.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20598-DB 2. This Interlocutory Application seeks condonation of delay of 1008 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the learned Single Judge’s judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 6309 of 2013. 3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 08.02.2023, had only directed the State to provide the benefit of pension to the respondent (original petitioner) under the State Government’s own policy, given the fact that similar benefits had been granted to other similarly placed employees. 4. The record shows that the respondent was a lowly paid, work- charged Pump Operator whose services had not been regularised for a considerable period. Further, in terms of the State Government’s policy, the benefit of regularisation was belatedly granted, but it was rather unfairly insisted that the respondent did not have the requisite pensionable service and, therefore, no pension was payable. The learned Single Judge, relying upon similar precedents in other similar cases, directed the payment of pension. 5. Despite the learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.02.2023, the mighty State chose to ignore the directions of the learned Single Judge for almost 13 months, forcing the respondent to file Contempt Petition (C) No. 366 of 2024 sometime in March 2024. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20598-DB 6. Even after the Contempt Petition was filed, the State neither chose to appeal the learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.02.2023 nor comply with the directions contained therein. 7. Ultimately, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the Contempt Petition, orders were made for the personal appearance of the Secretary of the Department. At that stage, on 20.12.2024, i.e., after a delay of more than 17 to 18 months, a review petition, being Civil Review No. 110 of 2025, seeking review of the impugned order dated 08.02.2023, was filed. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that even this review petition was kept pending without clearing the office objections. Such pendency was, in all probability, cited as a reason for non-compliance. In several matters, we have found that the Government files appeals or review petitions beyond the prescribed period of limitation, then refuses to clear the office objections for a reasonable time despite notice and then cites such pendency as a reason for non-compliance with the order appealed against or the order for which review is sought. This seems to be a usual modus operandi adopted by the State Government in several matters which come before us. 9. This review petition was dismissed on 17.10.2025, and now, this appeal has been filed on 15.12.2025 after a delay of 1008 days. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20598-DB 10. Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, the learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III, submits that since the State was pursuing the review petition bona fide and this appeal has been filed only two months after the review petition was disposed of, the delay should be condoned. 11. In the peculiar facts of this case, we cannot agree with this contention. There was nothing bona fide about the review petition. The same was filed after almost 17-18 months and kept pending only to avoid compliance with the directions in the impugned order dated 08.02.2023. Only after notices were issued to the Secretary to personally appear in the Contempt Petition was the respondent compelled to file/mention the review petition, which was ultimately dismissed. 12. Given the inordinate delay, there is no question of adopting a liberal approach. The State’s conduct also does not warrant a liberal approach at the expense of a lowly paid employee, who, after being exploited, has been granted limited relief by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 08.02.2023. 13. The impugned order records that, in similar circumstances, the State Government has extended similar relief to other employees as well. Further, such relief is consistent with a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2005(3) JLJR 38, wherein it has been held that work-charged employees are entitled to retiral benefits. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20598-DB 14. The impugned order merely directs that the petitioner’s services prior to formal regularisation be considered for pension purposes, as the issue of such formal orders was unjustifiably delayed by the State Government itself. 15. The State cannot seek condonation of delay by expecting the Court to overlook or ignore the circumstances in which the delay of 1008 days occurred. Here, upon consideration of the overall circumstances, it is apparent that the mighty State was bent on prolonging the misery of a lowly paid employee, i.e., the respondent herein, by denying him pensionary benefits. Accordingly, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has not been shown in this matter, and the delay of 1008 days is not liable to condonation. 16. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this I.A. and consequently, the accompanying appeal and the IAs, if any, therein, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 13, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 15.07.2026