The Supreme Court emphasized that merely citing procedural delays is insufficient for condoning delays in government appeals, reinforcing that claims for delay must demonstrate sufficient cause.

ORDER :

1. Respondent-Managing Committee of Namatara Girls’ High School¹[school] had approached the State Education Tribunal²[Tribunal], Bhubaneswar, Odisha with an application³[G.I.A. Case No.623 of 2011] under Section 24B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 for release of grant-in-aid.

2. By an order dated 30th December, 2013, the Tribunal allowed the application by directing the State of Odisha and the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha to release grant-in-aid in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school in the manner as directed.

3. The order dated 30th December, 2013 was carried in appeal⁴[FAO No. 582 of 2015] by the State of Odisha before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack⁵[High Court] on 16th October, 2015. The appeal was time-barred. Not only that, the appeal was not accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order. Since presentation of the appeal, for a period of 8 years to be precise, the State of Odisha had not filed the certified copy of the impugned order. By an order dated 26th April, 2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal citing failure to file the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order as the reason.

4. Stung by such order, the State of Odisha woke up from its slumber. It obtained the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order dated 30th December, 2013 on 13th February, 2024. A week later, the State of Odisha filed an application⁶[I.A. No.165 of 2024] seeking recall of the order dated 26th April, 2023. Together with such application was filed an application for condonation of delay⁷[I.A. No.126 of 2025] seeking condonation of 291 days’ delay.

5. The application for condonation of delay was taken up for consideration by the High Court on 21st February, 2025. Having noted that the certified copy of the impugned order was filed only on 13th February, 2024, the High Court correctly observed that the appeal filed on 16th October, 2015 was inherently defective and the delay in presenting the appeal is in excess of 11 years. Considering the aforesaid position, the application for condonation of delay was rejected resulting in the application for recall being dismissed as time-barred.

6. The order of the High Court dated 21st February, 2025 is challenged by the State of Odisha in this special leave petition.

7. It is noted that there is a delay of 123 days in filing the special leave petition and a further delay of 96 days in re-filing the same after curing defects. In the application for condonation of delay⁸[IA No.34867 of 2026, the State of Odisha seeks to explain the delay by pleading as follows:

“3. It is submitted that the Petitioner on receipt of order of the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26.04.2023 and order dated 21.02.2025 in F.A.O. No. 582 of 2015 and in I.A. No. 126 of 2025 in F.A.O. No. 582 of 2015 the petitioner considered the matter and sent it to the law department opined that it is a fit case for filing the present SLP against the impugned judgements dated 26.04.2023 and order dated 21.02.2025.

4. That the delay in filing the appeal was on account of procedural delay in obtaining approval from the higher authority. The delay caused is not deliberate and intentional.”

8. Ms. Sanjana Saddy, learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha, submits that the delay in presenting the special leave petition is not deliberate and having regard to the long line of decisions of this Court advocating a liberal approach when an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution is the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, she urges that the delay be condoned and this Court may direct the High Court to examine the challenge to the order dated 30th December, 2013 of the Tribunal on merits, upon revival of the appeal.

9. We had, upon hearing Ms. Sanjana, started dictating an order of dismissal of the special leave petition. It was then that she prayed for withdrawal of the special leave petition. We had so recorded. However, when we were about to rise for the day, Ms. Sanjana prayed for recal