Karnataka HC Rejects State’s 565-Day-Late Appeals Against Orders to Count Two Professors’ Aided-College Service for Pension

The respondents, both professors, had previously served as lecturers in government-aided engineering colleges before joining government engineering colleges in 2010. The Single Judge quashed the State’s refusals to count their aided-institution service for pension and directed the authorities to consider that service under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules.

The State filed these appeals approximately 565 days after the orders and sought condonation of delay, citing administrative processing, legal opinions, and preparation of appeal grounds.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation where the applicant establishes “sufficient cause”; the burden rests on the applicant, and the explanation must be bona fide and consistent with reasonable diligence. A liberal, justice-oriented approach is appropriate, but it does not excuse gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or a casual approach; the length of delay alone is not decisive, but the adequacy of its explanation is.

The Court relied on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, which quoted and applied the principles in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513.

The Court considered the explanations in the State’s affidavits, which described administrative steps—including seeking legal opinions, obtaining authorization, examining service particulars, and preparing appeal grounds—but found them “hardly satisfactory” as an explanation for the delay.

Applying the principles in Shivamma, the Court concluded that the State had not shown sufficient cause warranting condonation. It therefore did not examine the substantive merits of the appeals against the Single Judge’s pension-related directions.

The Single Judge’s orders directing consideration of the respondents’ prior aided-institution service for pension purposes were consequently left undisturbed. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not requiring adjudication.