[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Shiv Kumar Singh on 12 May, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:14428-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.83 of 2025
With
I.A. No.13497 of 2024
-----
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
.......... Appellants.
-Versus-
1. Shiv Kumar Singh, son of Late Gajadhar Prasad Singh, resident
of Sabitri Bhavan, Gullibhattha, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District-
Sahibganj.
2. Mahesh Prasad Sharma, son of Alekh Deo Sharma, resident of c/o
Prabhu Prajapati, 56 Set, Doranda, Lakhsmi Para, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate
-----
Order No.05 Date: 12.05.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. I.A. No.13497 of 2024 seeks condonation of delay of 153 days in
instituting the Letters Patent Appeal.
3. In the original I.A. and affidavit accompanying the same there
were hardly any reasons which could be construed as sufficient
cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, an opportunity was
granted to file a supplementary affidavit.
2026:JHHC:14428-DB
4. Though a long supplementary affidavit has been filed, again,
there are hardly any reasons which could be construed as
sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the
supplementary affidavit seeks to explain the steps taken within
30 days of the passing of the impugned order, given the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even the steps taken
antecedent to the expiry of the limitation period are relevant. On
perusing the supplementary affidavit, however, it is apparent that
no steps were taken.
6. In this case, the learned Single Judge's order is dated 11 th June,
2024. There is no clarity on when such order was received.
However, a copy of this order was sent to the department only
on 10th July, 2024. This means that during the period of 30 days,
no steps were taken.
7. The affidavit states that opinion from the Finance Department
was obtained on 6th August, 2024 and the Law Department on
22nd August, 2024. After that there are routine averments of
preparing of the draft grounds having them vetted and the files
moving from one table to the other.
8. Here, we are concerned with filing an LPA against an order
directing that some individuals be given the benefits of Assured
Career Progression (ACP). Still, as a matter of routine, statements
have been made about formulating draft grounds, getting them
approved from officer to officer and then filing the appeal. Such
2026:JHHC:14428-DB
grounds, apart from being unverifiable, cannot constitute
sufficient cause.
9. In the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living
Media India Limited and Another, (2012)3 SCC 563, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that law of limitation binds
everybody equally including Government and defence by
Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic
methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies
being used and available. Despite this decision, as of routine,
appeals are filed after delay and the delay is sought to be
explained precisely on the ground of tardy bureaucratic
procedure.
10. Incidentally, even in Post Master General and Others
(Supra), the Courts had granted an additional opportunity to file
a better affidavit by placing adequate material. However, no
material was placed to explain the delay in not applying the
certified copy within the prescribed period. The dates indicated
showed that there was a delay at every stage, and except for
mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decisions taken
thereon, there was no explanation as to why such a delay was
occasioned.
11. The I.A., the affidavit accompanying the I.A. and the
supplementary affidavit in the present matter are not different.
The chronology of the movement of the file has been set out,
despite the fact that, in the year 2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarified that this kind of inherited bureaucratic methodology
2026:JHHC:14428-DB
cannot be accepted as good and sufficient cause for explaining
the delay.
12. Besides, as noted earlier, all that the impugned order has held is
that the benefits of the 3rd ACP should be granted to the
petitioners/respondents because the same was given to one
Radhika Raman Prasad by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C.
No.14518 of 2013.
13. In fact, relying on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case
of Radhika Raman Prasad, even the petitioners' claim for 2nd
ACP benefit was accepted in W.P.(S) No.1569 of 2006 and the
decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld in L.P.A. No.504
of 2017.
14. For all the above reasons, we dismiss the I.A. seeking
condonation of delay.
15. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal will not survive, and is
hereby dismissed.
16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
dismissed. No costs.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
12th May, 2026
Sanjay/Rohit
Uploaded on 13.05.2026
