and CC/33/2022.

5. Notices were issued by registered post by the District Commission and inspite of service since the appellants failed to appear, as recorded in the orders of the District Commission, they were proceeded ex parte. All the complaints were allowed directing the appellants to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 7% till the date of actual payments with Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. The orders in CC/6/2022 and CC/7/2022 were passed on 25.06.2022 and a similar order was passed in CC/33/2022 on 11.01.2023.

6. All the three appellants filed three appeals being FA/942/2025, FA/943/2025 and FA/944/2025 before the SCDRC, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

7. As is evident from the dates all the three appeals were highly belated, FA/942/2025 was filed with an inordinate delay of 853 days, FA/943/2025 was filed with a huge delay of 1053 days and similarly FA/944/2025 was also filed with a similar delay of 1053 days.

8. All the appeals were accompanied by identical delay condonation applications with some identical recitals. We have perused all the three applications and the peculiarity is that paragraph 3 of all th the applications recite that the appellants have passed only class 8 and that they were innocent or were simply workers, who had no idea of the pendency of the proceedings and they only came to know about the orders after the execution proceedings were initiated. It may be pointed out that in all the three matters, EA/39/2023, EA/40/2023 and EA/41/2023 were filed and a recovery certificate in one of them was issued.

9. None of the delay condonation applications indicate the date of knowledge of the order, nor do the applications indicate as to how and in what manner, did they come to know of the orders of the District Commission except the pendency of execution and the delay condonation applications are absolutely sketchy and mechanical in nature. All the three appeals have been dismissed by a detailed order stating that no sufficient cause has been explained for the inordinate delay in the filing of the appeals as referred to above.

10. We find ourselves entirely in agreement with the order passed by the State Commission and in addition thereto we find that the explanation given by all the three appellants before the State Commission was a mere excuse and a pretence to overcome the limitation period with absolutely th baseless grounds and identical recitals that all of them were 8 class passed. We are unable to accept these averments and therefore the State Commission was justified in not accepting the explanation which also stands supported by the enunciation of law by the Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531 wherein the Court analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:

“30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial

31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an “explanation” and an “excuse”. An “explanation” is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happene