B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE opponent-Gujarat State Judicial Bailiff Association of Class-IV employees working as bailiffs in the civil courts had approached this court by way of Special Civil Application No. 7810/98 for redressal of their several grievances. Essentially, they were supposed to discharge their duties of serving summons, notices, orders of the court etc. on the litigants, as ordered by the courts. But because of the paucity of Hawaldars in the courts, even the work of looking after the Muddamal Articles of criminal courts, has also been entrusted to them, which is not coming in discharging of their duties. Separate post of Hawaldar is there. But, as stated earlier, due to paucity of staff that work is also being taken from the bailiffs. Therefore, before approaching this court by way of writ petition, the opponent-Association made a detailed representation to the High Court about their grievances and requested that bailiffs, who were already burdened with their own work should not be further burdened with additional duty of looking after the custody of Muddamal Articles. Having found the grievance being genuine, the High Court of Gujarat on its administrative side took up the matter with the State Government way back in January, 1995 calling upon it to create additional posts in Class-III and Class-IV in subordinate courts of the State, which include creating of six posts of Hawaldars in the subordinate courts, but the same had fallen on the deaf ears of the Government. Therefore, the matter was persuaded by the High Court as well as the opponent-Association by way of representations, but the State Government was sitting tight over the matter by not paying any heed to the representations made by the Association or even to this High Court, may be because the judiciary is the last priority for the State Government due to some bureaucrats. Therefore, as a last resort the opponent-Association approached this court in 1998 by way of wit petition i. e. Special Civil Application No. 7810/98. ( 2 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge on behalf of the Association it was submitted that the Districts, where the posts are in existence, the bailiffs should not be saddled with the liability of being in charge of the Muddamal Articles of the criminal trial and that the work should be entrusted to the Hawaldars. ( 2 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge on behalf of the Association it was submitted that the Districts, where the posts are in existence, the bailiffs should not be saddled with the liability of being in charge of the Muddamal Articles of the criminal trial and that the work should be entrusted to the Hawaldars. However, on behalf of the High Court, its learned counsel submitted that till the posts of Hawaldars are sanctioned by the State Government the present arrangement may continue. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge found that the problem of the members of the Association persist because of the tardy progress made by the Government in this direction, as except 11 posts of Hawaldars of subordinate judiciary, the Government did not do anything in the matter. Learned Single Judge has also noticed that after establishment of the Fast Track Courts, even in the present strength of Hawaldars proved to be totally inadequate. Therefore, His Lordship was of the considered opinion that the Government is now required to take urgent steps in the matter to accede to the request made by the High Court in 1995 and create posts in the subordinate courts. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the State of Gujarat to accede to the request made by the High Court and create sufficient posts of Hawaldars for the subordinate courts mentioned in the judgment on or before 31. 12. 2004 and the High Court similarly directed to consider the request made by the petitioner-Association to the fact that district courts in which the posts of Hawaldars are already existing, the work of custody of the Muddamal Articles be withdrawn as has been given to the Hawaldars on the proper representation being made by the Association to the High Court till the additional posts of Hawaldars are created. ( 3 ) IT may be stated that though learned Single Judge of this court (Coram : Akshay H. Mehta, J.) delivered the judgment way back on 13. 4. 2004 directing the State Government to create posts of Hawaldars in the subordinate courts on or before 31. 12. 2004, it did not take any steps so far except challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in above appeal only on 14. 10. 4. 2004 directing the State Government to create posts of Hawaldars in the subordinate courts on or before 31. 12. 2004, it did not take any steps so far except challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in above appeal only on 14. 10. 2004 at the fag end of the deadline imposed by the learned Single Judge in his order and thereby causing delay of 154 days in filing the above appeal. For condoning the gross delay of 154 days present application is filed. ( 4 ) ONLY ground for condoning gross delay of 154 days is stated in para 3 of the present application, which reads as under :-"the applicant states that the above referred Letters Patent Appeal ought to have been filed on or before 13. 5. 2004. However, on account of procedural delay in decision making process for preferring this Letters Patent Appeal, appeal could not be filed on or before 14. 10. 2004 and therefore, the appeal is delayed by 154 days. The applicant, therefore, states that there is no negligence much less any culpable negligence in filing the above referred Letters Patent Appeal by the delay of 154 days". ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Adeshra appearing for the opponent-Association vehemently objected grant of this application and condoning gross delay of 154 days by submitting that the aforesaid ground cannot be said to be a cause much less sufficient cause for condoning gross delay of 154 days. He submitted that the applicant has not offered any sufficient explanation whatsoever except by stating that there is a procedural delay. He submitted that on such flimsy grounds, if delay is condoned, then practically the Limitation Act would stand scrapped. He submitted that this can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking gross condonation of delay of 154 days. We find lot of force and substance in the submission made by Mr. Adeshra. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particularly party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. We find lot of force and substance in the submission made by Mr. Adeshra. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particularly party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in case of P. K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala reported in case of AIR 1998 SC 2276 . In case of P. K. Ramchandran (supra) there was a delay of about 565 days in filing appeal before the High Court by State of Kerala. Only ground for condoning delay offered in that application for condonation of delay was that the office of the Advocate General was over-burdened with many cases, therefore, delay was caused. The High Court having found it a sufficient cause condoned the delay. The said order of the High Court was challenged before the apex court by the other side by way of S. L. P. While allowing the appeal filed by the other side, the Honble Apex Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious by observing that Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, learned AGP, Mr. Dave submitted that substantial justice should be done by this court and not technical one. He submitted that if this Civil Application is not granted, then main Letters Patent Appeal would stand dismissed without being heard on merits and that the appellant-State of Gujarat has a very strong case in its favour. Relying on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 , Mr. Dave submitted that the delay be condoned and appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge be admitted and the order be stayed as the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing such directions. ( 7 ) WE fully bow down to the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Mst. Katiji (supra ). Dave submitted that the delay be condoned and appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge be admitted and the order be stayed as the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing such directions. ( 7 ) WE fully bow down to the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Mst. Katiji (supra ). We may state that before passing this order on the Civil Application, we have also carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application No. 7810/98 on 13. 4. 2004 and having carefully gone through the same and having heard learned AGP, Mr. Dave, on merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single was absolutely right in allowing the writ petition and issuing certain directions in his order. In case of R. K. Das Gupta v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2001 Raj 74 , Rajasthan High Court has held that whenever any recommendation is made by the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court on administrative capacity to the State Government, then it is the duty of the State Government to respect and honour it by treating the said request as command. We have come across some of the cases where the State Government is not respecting and honouring the recommendations made by the High Court on its administrative side, which is not at all proper. It is as good as judgment of the High Court. Our experience shows that because of some bureaucrats this happens. Their general tendency is not to act upon the recommendations made by the High Court on its administrative side and if it is not evitable, then delay it, which is required to be condemned in the strongest words. ( 8 ) COMING to the facts of this case, the opponent-Association had genuine grievance and for redressal of its grievance before approaching this court, they first approached the authorities by way of representations. But as usual, their representations fell on the deaf ears though the High Court had recommended their case. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, when the petition is allowed by the learned Single Judge, then there is no question of entertaining this application of condonation of delay. But as usual, their representations fell on the deaf ears though the High Court had recommended their case. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, when the petition is allowed by the learned Single Judge, then there is no question of entertaining this application of condonation of delay. Even if the appeal was filed within the time, then also it would not have been entertained by this court in view of the solid and cogent reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order while allowing the writ petition. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion, this application fails and is hereby dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay special cost of Rs. 6,000/= (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the opponent-Association, which shall be recovered by the applicant-State of Gujarat from the person concerned, who is responsible for filing this frivolous appeal and application. Rule is discharged. ( 11 ) MAIN Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as having become time barred by observing that on merits also it had no case. ( 12 ) NOW, the applicant-State of Gujarat will immediately respect the order of the learned Single Judge and comply the same in its true letter and spirit latest by 31. 12. 2004, as already directed by the learned Single Judge. It goes without saying that if they do not comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, then it may constitute contempt for which the concerned person would be responsible. Copy of this order be given to Mr. Dave, learned AGP forthwith for its immediate implementation. .