JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single i Judge dated 4.1.1995. 2. For eight years this matter has not been heard because of non-service of respondent No. 7, who is an employee of the appellant itself. 3. Having perused the material on record and the contentions raised, s tie find that service on respondent No. 7 is not at all essential for the purpose of decision of this lis and, therefore, service on respondent No. 7 is Dispensed with. 4. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal are being heard on merit. 5. The appeal is barred by 166 days. A perusal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not disclose any good reason, which could have prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within limitation. There is gross negligence on the part of the appellant to prosecute the matter diligently and the same is apparent from the fact that is notwithstanding the sanction having been issued on 20.6.1996 and the copy of the judgment under appeal having been collected by the Officer In-charge on 4.7.1996, no prompt dispatch after getting sanction in filing the appeal was shown. This is apart from the fact that no promptness has been shown despite knowing the period of limitation, to discharge its obligation, particularly, looking to the complexity of the issue involved. 6. Be that as it may, even if we condone the delay caused in filing the appeal, we do not see any merit in the appeal, which arises out of a motor accident admittedly caused by the vehicle owned by Public Health & Engineering Department, which is a department of the appellant itself. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was being driven by an employee of the State albit he was a co-pilot of the vehicle. The fact that the accident was caused by the same vehicle, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the person employed by the appellant on the involved vehicle resulted into death of Shiv Singh and Ram Lal is also not in dispute. The only contention is that Narain Singh, Driver of the vehicle and Dalpat Singh was employed as Khalasi on the vehicle while the vehicle was under the control of Khalasi-Dalpat Singh, it met with an accident. The only contention is that Narain Singh, Driver of the vehicle and Dalpat Singh was employed as Khalasi on the vehicle while the vehicle was under the control of Khalasi-Dalpat Singh, it met with an accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is not vicariously liable for the negligent act of its employee, which resulted in death of two persons, whose heirs and legal representatives are the respondents. 7. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******