2026:JHHC:21450-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 305 of 2026 SAMIR TUDU, aged about- 61 years, son of Late Michael Tudu, resident of Anandpuri, P.O.-College More, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribag (Jharkhand). ... Appellant Versus 1. The Chairman, Canara Bank, Personnel wing No. 112, J.C. Road, P.O. & P.S.- Ulfoor Gate, Head Office, Bangalore-560002. 2. The Executive Director, Canara Bank, Industrial Relation Section, P.O. and P.S. Ulfoorgate, Personnel wing No.-112, J.C. Road, Head Office, Bangalore-560002. 3. The General Manager, Canara Bank, Industrial Relation Section, P.O. and P.S. Ulfoorgate, Personnel wing No.-112, J.C. Road, Head Office, Bangalore-560002. .. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 20.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 5756 of 2026 seeks condonation of delay of 4449 days in filing the accompanying Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The I.A. merely refers to the various proceedings filed by the appellant and finally states that the delay caused in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal “is not a voluntary one, rather it was due to inadvertence”. 4. From the I.A., we gather that the appellant’s grievance was against the learned Single Judge’s judgment and order dated 2026:JHHC:21450-DB 26.11.2013 in W.P(S) No. 7850 of 2012. Therefore, the appellant preferred L.P.A. No. 21 of 2014 against the same. 5. However, by order dated 17th December 2014, L.P.A. No. 21 of 2014 was withdrawn by the appellant with liberty to file a review petition against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2013. 6. Thereafter, the appellant did file Civil Review No. 4 of 2015 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 26.11.2013 in W.P(S) No. 7850 of 2012. This review was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.02.2019. 7. Against the order dated 01.02.2019, the appellant preferred L.P.A. No. 579 of 2019, even though it is well settled that against an order dismissing a review petition, an L.P.A. would not be maintainable. 8. Again, L.P.A. No. 579 of 2019 was withdrawn by the appellant with liberty to challenge the judgment and order dated 26.11.2013 in W.P(S) No. 7850 of 2012. This liberty was granted by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 but by keeping all contentions of the parties on merits open. 9. Relying on the liberty in the order dated 03.02.2026, now, this L.P.A. has been filed after a delay of 4449 days. 10. Firstly, we need to clarify that the grant of liberty in our order dated 03.02.2026 does not mean that we have ruled on the maintainability of an LPA against the order dated 26.11.2013 in W.P(S) No. 7850 of 2012 after the L.P.A. No. 21 of 2014 to challenge the same order was withdrawn by the appellant seeking liberty to file a review petition. 2026:JHHC:21450-DB 11. Ultimately, such issues of maintainability must be decided in accordance with law and not based upon a liberty as was sought to be contended in this matter. Liberties are granted to decide or to invoke remedies as may be available under the law. Incidentally, when granting this liberty, this Court was not aware that the LPA challenging this very order was earlier withdrawn, not with any liberty to file a fresh LPA, but a Review, or the fate of such review. 12. In this case, the appellant has alternated between remedies of appeal and review. In all probabilities, the moment the appellant realised that the Court was not inclined to grant any relief, the appeal and/or the review petitions were withdrawn with liberty to opt for some other remedies. All this has resulted in delay of 4449 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal even assuming on a demurrer that such a L.P.A. would be maintainable at this point of time. The delay is inordinate, and the explanation is inadequate. 13. Mr Tewari, however, submitted that the appellant has not had an opportunity to put forth his case on the merits of the matter. With respect, we are unable to agree with Mr. Tewari’s contention. Both the orders dated 26.11.2013 and, to some extent, the order dated 01.02.2019 dismissing the appellant’s review petition touched the merits of the matter but denied any relief to the appellant upon concluding that the petitioner’s cause lacked merit. 2026:JHHC:21450-DB 14. In any event, at this stage the appellant cannot casually contend that the delay in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal was not voluntary but due to inadvertence. Based on the averments in the I.A., no case is made out for condoning the inordinate delay of 4449 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The appellant, having availed of several opportunities but failed, cannot be assisted in simply keeping the pot boiling by condoning the inordinate delay of 4449 days, or over 12 years, in filing this second LPA against the order dated 26.11.2013. 15. For all the above reasons, we dismiss the I.A. and consequently, the accompanying appeal even assuming on a demurrer that such an appeal was maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No costs. 16. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 20, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 23.07.2026