Telangana High Court
The Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development ... vs R Siddappa on 19 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
I.A. No.1 of 2025
in/and
WRIT APPEAL No. 1100 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Sri G. Narayana, learned counsel appears for appellant. Sri K. Ramakrishna, learned counsel appears for Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
Sri S. Suman, learned Government Pleader for Services-III appears for respondent No.3.
2. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.34356 of 2022 whereby the learned writ Court directed the respondent authorities to implement the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.8545 of 2011, within a period of two (2) months. The learned Tribunal had in the order dated 02.11.2011 extended the relief, as directed in O.A.No.7908 of 2011 vide order dated 22.09.2011, 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.A.No.1100 of 2025 to the writ petitioner that he was entitled for retrospective regularization of his services for the purposes of pension and pensionary benefits. Respondent No.1 had approached the writ Court aggrieved by the non-implementation of the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.8545 of 2011 for the purposes of pension and pensionary benefits without any monetary benefit as was done in the case of others.
3. The instant Writ Appeal suffers from a delay of 566 days. Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay on the grounds contained in para 11 of the accompanying affidavit which is extracted hereunder:
"It is submitted that there is a delay in filing the present Appeal due to getting the order copy and communication gap, transfers of the concerned officers and coordination by the concerned in perusing the case and the delay is neither willful nor wanton only due to the above said reason."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the delay is not condoned and if such a relief is granted to the writ petitioner, it would lead to serious repercussions.
3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.A.No.1100 of 2025
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has strongly objected to the prayer for condonation of delay.
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and the only ground urged on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has failed to furnish any sufficient cause whatsoever for condonation of delay of 566 days in preferring the instant Writ Appeal.
7. Bureaucratic red tape and procedural delays in preferring the appeals by the State or its instrumentalities had often been frowned upon by the Apex Court in a series of judgments, such as, Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board and others 1. The machinery of the organization does not come to a standstill on transfers of the Heads of the Departments or any Subordinate Officer. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.A.No.1100 of 2025
8. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is dismissed. Consequently, the instant Writ Appeal is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ _____________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 19th NOVEMBER, 2025.
kvni