State should be a model litigant: Karnataka High Court on 1,099-day delay in filing appeal

The State is expected to be a model litigant, not a privileged procrastinator, said the Karnataka High Court recently while refusing to condone delays ranging from 466 days to 1,099 days in the filing appeals of appeals in service cases concerning KSLU employees [State of Karnataka & others v. KSLU & others].

By the October 16 ruling, a Division Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni dismissed appeals filed by the State and the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) against orders granting relief to employees who sought the regularisation of service and consequential benefits.

The Court passed the ruling after noting that the four appeals moved in the matter were filed after inordinate delays of 626 days, 1,099 days, 466 days and 548 days.

The Court also rejected the explanations given for these delays as appalling and inadequate.

It found that the explanations offered by the State and KSLU largely relied on administrative procedures, movement of files, interdepartmental correspondence and the time taken to obtain legal opinions. The Court held that they failed to establish any sufficient cause for the extraordinary delays.

The Court warned that the State and its instrumentalities cannot claim preferential treatment under the law of limitation merely because they are government bodies.

“The State is expected to be a model litigant, not a privileged procrastinator,” the Court observed.

It also criticised the State for citing its own administrative inefficiency as an excuse for the delay in moving the appeals.

"Administrative procedure cannot be permitted to masquerade as sufficient cause, nor can bureaucratic indifference be clothed in the garb of procedural necessity. If the mere circulation of files and preparation of papers by Law Officers were to constitute sufficient cause, the law of limitation would lose its meaning whenever the State enters the portals of a Court. The State cannot seek to transform its own administrative inertia into a ground for judicial indulgence," the Bench said.

The law may accommodate genuine administrative difficulties, but will not tolerate "administrative indifference masquerading as sufficient cause," the Court added.

The appeals arose from orders passed by single judges in proceedings concerning the regularisation of employees appointed to posts at KSLU in 2010 and their claims for consequential service benefits, including salary grants and arrears.

The State had filed three appeals, while the university filed one, challenging orders passed in favour of the employees.

The Court on October 16 dismissed these appeals after finding that the State and the KSLU did not disclose any compelling circumstance that prevented them from approaching the Court in a timely manner.

It also took critical note that the reasons given to explain the delays in different appeals were substantially similar.

"A copy-and-paste explanation cannot become a passport to condonation of delay... The law requires an explanation for the delay, not a reproduction of excuses; it demands diligence, not a demonstration of bureaucratic routine," the Court said.

The Bench went on to note that the employees who had got relief from the single-judge Bench had initiated contempt of court proceedings alleging non-compliance with the earlier judicial orders.

The State and the university filed the appeals only when they were faced with the prospect of contempt proceedings, the Court observed.

"It is only when the spectre of contempt proceedings loomed large that the administrative machinery appears to have awakened from its prolonged slumber."

The Court emphasised that successful litigants should not be made to wait indefinitely for the benefits of judicial orders while government authorities seek to reopen litigation by relying on their own administrative inefficiencies.

It further held that the law of limitation applies equally to the State, public institutions and private litigants.

“A liberal approach (to the condonation of delays) cannot become a one-sided indulgence that rewards the indolent and penalizes the diligent,” the Bench added.

Before parting with the matter, the Court also commented on the irony involved in the State's failure to file its appeals on time, when Karnataka has a law (the Karnataka Conduct of Government Litigation Act, 2023) enacted to ensure efficiency in government litigation.

"The irony is unmistakable: the State enacted a law to arrest red-tapism, but red-tapism appears to have arrested the operation of the law," the Court remarked.

Additional Advocate General Gangadhar JM, and High Court Government Pleader Girija S Hiremath appeared for the State.

Advocate Pavan B Doddatti appeared for KSLU.

Advocates Sunil S Desai and KL Patil appeared for respondents. 

[Read Judgment]