The State Of Jharkhand vs Brahmdeo Roy on 23 March, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                          Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8087-DB




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                I.A. No. 4865 of 2025
                     In / And
                L.P.A. No. 261 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, School Education &
   Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, MDI Building,
   Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, having his office at Project
   Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Paragna
   Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. & District-Dumka
4. The District Education Officer, Deoghar, P.O. & P .S. & District -
   Deoghar.
                                        ...     Respondents/Appellants
                          Versus
Brahmdeo Roy, S/o Late Puri Roy, residing at Vill - Nawadih
(Mohanpur), P.O. Kashathi, P.S.- Madhupur, Dist-Deoghar, Jharkhand
                                            ...  Petitioner/Respondent
                          ---------

CORAM:             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                          ---------
For the Appellants:       Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Addl. A.G.-III
For the Respondent:       Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate
                          Miss Nisha Kumari, Advocate
                          Mr. Aaryamann Relan, Advocate
                          ---------
04/Dated: 23.03.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No. 4865 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 470 days in

instituting the appeal.

3. We have perused the I.A. and the affidavit in reply filed on

behalf of the respondent.

4. We are satisfied that no case is being made out to condone the

delay of 470 days.

5. The main reason set out in the application is that the appellants,

in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2023,

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8087-DB

passed a reasoned order dated 28.10.2023 declining the original

petitioner financial upgradation. This was done under the belief that the

learned Single Judge had merely directed reconsideration of the original

petitioner's case. However, the original petitioner filed a Contempt

petition in which certain adverse orders were made against the

appellants. Therefore, it is submitted that it was felt necessary to file

this appeal.

6. Some subsidiary reasons, like compliance with procedural

formalities and ongoing assembly elections in the State, have also been

raised. The subsidiary reasons are completely frivolous and bereft of

any details.

7. Even the primary reason cannot constitute sufficient cause. The

appellants cannot take belated decisions to file appeals merely because

the learned Single Judge may have hauled them up for disobeying its

orders.

8. The reasons stated are casual, and this is not a fit case to grant

indulgence to the appellants - State.

9. In the case of Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media

India Limited and Another, reported in (2012)3 SCC 563, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:-

"25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in

the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr Aparajeet Pattanayak,

SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to

note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8087-DB

mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the

Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief

Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11-9-2009. Even

according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the

certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the

same was received by the Department on the very same day.

There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy

of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a

reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was

applied for only on 8- 1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four

months.

26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better

affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department

nor the person-incharge has filed any explanation for not

applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The

other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already

extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and

except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the

decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay

had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that

the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine

difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department

or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in

prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate

steps.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8087-DB

27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well

aware or conversant with the issues involved including the

prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way

of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot

claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the

Department was possessed with competent persons familiar

with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and

acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the

delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the

Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of

condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or

deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession

has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the

view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department

cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim

on account of impersonal machinery and inherited

bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be

accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and

available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody,

including the Government."

10. In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji

Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC

489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8087-DB

"25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or

a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the

gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to

approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed

under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn

around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either

side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the

parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43

years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not

been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a

mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and

158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the

rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the

court must take into consideration while considering whether

the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the

approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix

their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings

for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is

held that a party has lost his right to have the matter

considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it

cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such

circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that

the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the

technical considerations. While considering the plea for

condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8087-DB

of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain

the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking

condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the

litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally

balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the

matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not

merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are

based on the principles of sound public policy and principles

of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles'

hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period

of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the

appellants.