JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is barred by 476 days.

2. In the application for condonation of delay, in order to explain long delay of 476 days, all that has been stated in the application is as below:-

"2. That the impugned order was passed on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, after taking legal opinion from the counsel it was placed for decision in the meeting of the department head on 19.2.2020 wherein decision for filing Special Appeal was taken. The decision of the meeting was circulated vide order No. 4371 dated 24.2.2020. Thereafter the matter was forwarded to the Additional Advocate General for preparing special appeal vide Letter No. 1852 dated 17.3.2020. Subsequently, due to worldwide pandemic Covid-19 lock down was imposed throughout Country/State including the Department of the appellants. Upon resumption of function/works the Special Appeal was prepared and after getting the same wet from concern authorities and the same has been filed before this Hon'ble Court without any further delay.

3. That the delay caused in filing of the special appeal is not coupled with any malafide or deliberate intention rather it is due to aforesaid bonafide reason, as such it deserves to the condoned in the interest of justice since the appellants has a strong case on merits."

3. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements have deprecated this practice on the part of the State Authority in sitting over the matter and filing appeals after inordinate delay coming-forth with the only excuse of matter having remained pending in the office from one table to the other.

4. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below-

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. 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.

(13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonaf