The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently addressed a case involving the Union of India seeking a review of an order passed by a single-judge bench. The review petition aimed to condone a delay of 65 days.

The bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani however, emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for an extension of the prescribed period in certain cases, cannot be liberally interpreted merely because the applicant is a government department.

The court observed that the law of limitation must be strictly applied as prescribed by the statute. While Section 5 provides for an extension, the applicant must convincingly demonstrate sufficient and plausible cause for not filing the application, appeal, or petition within the specified period. In this instance, the court found the Union of India's explanation for the delay to be lacking, describing it as casual and cryptic.

The original writ petition involved a request for compassionate appointment due to the death of the petitioner's husband during employment. The court had directed the respondents to offer compassionate appointments expeditiously, but a delay occurred. The respondents later decided to offer the appointment, considering the delay and granting relaxation in the upper age limit.

Referring to legal precedent, specifically the case P. K. Ramachadran v. State of Kerala, the court reiterated that the law of limitation should be rigorously applied. 

Case: Union of India v. Jagjeet Kour,

RP No. 99/2023 CM No. 4967/2023 CM No. 4968/2023.