2026:JHHC:8959-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 3154 of 2025 In L.P.A. No. 151 of 2025 ------- 1. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telephone Bhawan, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. SDE, Group, BSNL, CTO Building, 3rd Floor, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. SDE, (Hinoo), BSNL, Telephone Exchange, RC-II, Indira Place, Ranchi, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi. 4. SDE, Dhurwa, BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 5. SDE, (Simdega), BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Simdega, P.O., P.S.-Simdega, District-Simdega. 6. SDE, (Khunti), BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Khunti, P.O., P.S.-Khunti, District-Khunti. Petitioners are represented through AGM (Legal), in the O/o GM, BA, Ranchi namely Sushil Kumar Sinha, Son of Late L. B. P. Sinha, resident of Flat No.402, Bachhan Residency, Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Bariyatu, District-Ranchi. ......Appellant(s) Versus 1. Union of India through The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi, E-191, Sector-II, HEC Colony, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. Dainik Bhogi Mazdur Sangh, represented through Sri Nageshwar Prasad, District Secretary, BSNL, Main Road, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. .....Respondent(s) ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, C.G.C. Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to A.S.G.I. ------- 02/ Dated: 30.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 989 days in instituting this appeal. 2026:JHHC:8959-DB 2 3. The application and the reasons given therein are extremely sketchy and based upon the same no sufficient cause can be said to have been made out. 4. The application and the reasons given therein are extremely sketchy and based upon the same no sufficient cause can be said to have been made out. 5. In paragraphs 1 and 2 there is reference to the quantum of delay and the order against which this appeal has been filed. Para 3 refers to obtaining opinion of the counsel who, refused to give any opinion unless relevant documents were produced before him. No dates or details have been provided in paragraph 3. 6. Paragraphs 4 to 6 are equally vague and based upon unverifiable averments. 7. Paragraph 6 shows the extent of callousness on the part of the applicant. 8. In para 4, it is stated that the order of learned RLC, Ranchi dated 26.02.2014 was based on certain exhibits submitted by the applicants. However, the present appellants were able to receive the correct exhibits only in the month of January, 2025. Based upon such averments, which cannot even be believed or in any event, only expose the casualness with which such matters are handled, this delay of 989 days cannot be condoned. 2026:JHHC:8959-DB 3 9. Accordingly, by following the reasoning in the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, we dismiss this application. L.P.A. No. 151 of 2025 10. In a consequence of dismissal of this application, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is also disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stand disposed. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) MARCH 30, 2026 Amardeep/vikas Uploaded 01.04.2026