ORDER :

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Rule 2(2) and R-3-A of Order XLI, of the Code of Civil Procedure and Chapter V of the Gauhati High Court Rules praying for condonation of delay of 1164 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.08.2015 passed by the learned Singe Judge in W.P.(C) No. 123 (AP) 2015.

3. Mr. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate in is endeavour to explain the delay of 1164 days in filing the appeal has read paragraph-2 of the application and submitted that the delay has occurred due to the involvement of 3 (three) departments in the decision making process. The contents of the paragraph-2 of the appeal are reproduced herein below:

"2. That the applicants states that against the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 123 (AP) 2015 the applicants ought to have been filed the appeal within 30 (thirty) days. However, there is delay of 1106 in filing the appeal due to the following grounds as stated here in below:-

(a) That the applicant state that the copy of the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 123(AP)2015 was received on 15.08.2015 and thereafter confirmation was taken from the office of the Sr. Govt. Advocate later on.

(b) That after receiving the judgment the matter was routed as well as discussed with the concerned departments namely; Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Department of Education and the Department of Audit and Pension. After consulted all the concerned departments the decision were taken to file an appropriate appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2015.

(c) Thereafter the matter was discussed with the Govt. Advocate and finally vide letter dated 20.7.2018 the office of the Senior Govt. Advocate was requested to prepare a necessary appeal against the judgment. And after preparation of the appeal the same has been filed."

4. Mr. Tara, learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly objected the prayer of the applicants and submitted that no reasonable cause has been shown in the application for the delay, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondent has retired from service after serving the Government for 32 years and he has not been given his pension since his retirement on 31.10.2014, therefore, he should not be made to suffer any more. In support of his submission the learned counsel cited the judgment of this Court dated 02.11.2016 passed in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Hussain Ahmed (MD) reported in 2016 (5) GLT 124. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced herein below:

"The decision of Supreme Court in Office of Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation:

"The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instru