Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010186762025 2026:GAU-AS:1548 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2953/2025 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 78101 VERSUS CHANDRESWAR SAIKIA AND 14 ORS ASSTT. TEACHER, CHENGAMARI L.P. SCHOOL, BORDOLONI BLOCK, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM. 2:NARESH BARUAH HEADMASTER L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 3:IKAN PEGU ASSTT. TEACHER RUPALI L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 4:INDRESWAR CHUTIA ASSTT. TEACHER Page No.# 2/8 ADUT KHURACHUK L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 5:NIRU BORUAH ASSTT. TEACHER CHAIDHUA BALIGAON L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 6:MUHINI PHUKAN ASSTT. TEACHER MOINAPARA L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 7:KANTI SAIKIA ASSTT. TEACHER OF NO. 503 AUNIATI KAIBATTA L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 8:SUBHABALA DAS ASSTT. TEACHER AUNIATIKAIBATTA L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 9:NAREN HAZARIKA HEADMASTER BALIGAON L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 10:MINESWARI DIHINGIA ASSTT. TEACHER Page No.# 3/8 BHAKATKAIBATTA L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 11:RISHINDRA HAJONG HEADMASTER NO. 2 BAJAYANTIPUR L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 12:JURI BALA HAZARIKA ASSTT TEACHER 34 BARBILABHEBELI KASARI L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 13:JITENDRA KUMAR BORA ASSTT. TEACHER GOKHAIN BARI L.P. SCHOOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 14:REBAT GOGOI ASSTT TEACHER MONGALATI L.P. SCHOOL BORDOLONI BLOCK DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 15:THE TREASURY OFFICER DHEMAJI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J KHATANIAR, SC, EDU,MS. S CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : S K LAHAN (R-1,2,5,6,7,8,10), NAYANMONI KALITA (R12- R14),MR. P HAZARIKA (R12-R14),MR. N BORAH (R-1,2,5,6,7,8,10) Page No.# 4/8 Linked Case : CRP/0/0 THE STATE OF ASSAM ASSAM VERSUS CHANDRESWAR SAIKIA ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. NAYAN JYOTI KHATANIAR Advocate for : appearing for CHANDRESWAR SAIKIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 06.02.2026 (K. Goswami, J) Heard Mr. N J Khataniar, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. N Borah as well as Mr. P Hazarika, learned counsels appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of a delay of 187 days in preferring the accompanying writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 9573/2019. Page No.# 5/8 3. The respondents/writ petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in different L.P. Schools in the district of Dhemaji. Their salaries were stopped in the year 1996 on the purported ground that their services were liable to be terminated pursuant to a decision of the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Dhemaji. According to the writ petitioners, their services were never actually terminated and, upon request made by the DEEO, Dhemaji, their salaries were released by the Director of Elementary Education (DEE), Assam and continued to be paid till July, 2007. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5635/2007, which was disposed of on 27.04.2012 directing the authorities to examine their cases. Upon such examination, the DEE, Assam passed an order dated 05.05.2015 observing that the termination was preceded by issuance of show-cause notices and consideration of replies. 5. Challenging the show-cause notices dated 30.03.1992 and termination orders dated 18.05.1992, the writ petitioners filed WP(C) No. 9573/2019, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the termination orders and holding that the petitioners were entitled to all consequential service benefits. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent authorities have preferred the present writ appeal with a delay of 187 days. 7. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the delay occurred on account of administrative exigencies inherent in governmental functioning. Upon receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment, the matter was examined at various administrative levels and, after due deliberation, a conscious decision was taken to prefer an appeal. The records were thereafter transmitted to the office of the Standing Counsel, where the appeal was drafted, vetted, and ultimately filed. It is contended that the delay was neither deliberate Page No.# 6/8 nor intentional. 8. Per contra, Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, strongly opposes the prayer for condonation, contending that the applicants have failed to explain the delay with sufficient particulars, especially the time consumed at the level of the Standing Counsel. He submits that the State and its instrumentalities are not exempted from explaining “sufficient cause” and places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Postmaster General and Others -Vs- Living Media India Limited and Another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the grounds stated in the condonation application, this Court finds that immediately upon receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment, the matter was processed at different administrative levels and a decision was taken to challenge the judgment before the appellate forum. Thereafter, the records were transmitted to the Standing Counsel’s office, where the appeal was prepared after due examination and vetting. 10. The explanation furnished does not disclose any element of negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides. The delay appears to be occasioned in the ordinary course of governmental decision-making and movement of files, which, though not to be mechanically accepted, cannot also be equated with culpable or gross negligence. 11. The law relating to condonation of delay has been authoritatively laid down by the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan -Vs- M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein it has been held that length of delay is immaterial and acceptability of the explanation is the sole criterion, and that the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial Page No.# 7/8 justice. 12. The decision relied upon by the respondents in Living Media India Limited (supra) does not lay down an inflexible rule that delay on the part of the State must invariably be rejected. On the contrary, the said decision was rendered in the backdrop of unexplained, casual, and habitual delay coupled with complete absence of bona fides. The present case stands on a clearly distinguishable footing, as the delay has been explained by setting out the sequence of administrative steps leading to the filing of the appeal, and no material is placed on record to indicate deliberate laches or dilatory tactics. 13. It is well settled that while the State does not enjoy any special privilege in the matter of limitation, a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach is required, particularly where refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosure of a statutory remedy without adjudication on merits. 14. This Court is also mindful that the respondents will have full opportunity to contest the appeal on merits and no irreversible prejudice is shown to have been caused merely by condonation of delay. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the applicants have shown sufficient and bona fide cause for condonation of the delay of 187 days. 16. Accordingly, the delay in preferring the accompanying writ appeal is condoned. 17. Registry shall number and list the accompanying writ appeal accordingly. 18. With the above observations and directions, the instant interlocutory application, stands allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 8/8 JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant