ORDER S.C. Parija, J. - Misc Case No. 90 of 2009. This is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 282 day in filing the application for restoration of the FAO No. 146 of 2006, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory Order Dated 21.01.2009. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application is that the Respondent-Opp. Party filed an application u/s 24-B of the Orissa Education Act before the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, which was registered as GIA Case No. 65 of 2004, claiming grant-in-aid with effect from 01.01.2004 in addition to other reliefs. The said application of the Respondent Opp. Party was disposed of by the State Education Tribunal vide Judgment dated 24.12.2004, holding that the present Respondent-Opp. Party is eligible to receive grant-in-aid, as per the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-aid to the High Schools and Upper Primary Schools etc.) Order, 2004, & therefore is entitled to receive such grant-in-aid from the month of January 2004. 3. The said Judgment of the State Education Tribunal dated 24.12.2004 passed in GIA Case No. 65 of 2004 was challenged by the present Appellants -Petitioners in appeal before this Court in FAO No. 146 of 2006, which was filed on 04.04.2006. Along with the memo of appeal, the Appellants-Petitioners filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 376 days in filing the appeal, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 221 of 2006. After notice on the question of limitation, the Respondent-Opp. Party appeared & filed objection to the application for condonation of delay. This Court vide Order Dated 28.11.2008, considering the grounds taken in the application & the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties & taking a lenient view of the matter, condoned the delay of 376 days in filing the appeal, subject to payment of Rs. 5000 as cost, to be paid to the Learned CounseI appearing for the Respondent-Opp. Party. 4. The Appellants-Petitioners did not pay the cost of Rs. 5000 within the stipulated period of 4 weeks & prayed for further time to pay the said cost, Accordingly, by Order Dated 21.01.2009, this Court granted further 2 weeks time to the Appellants-Petitioners to pay the cost of Rs. Party. 4. The Appellants-Petitioners did not pay the cost of Rs. 5000 within the stipulated period of 4 weeks & prayed for further time to pay the said cost, Accordingly, by Order Dated 21.01.2009, this Court granted further 2 weeks time to the Appellants-Petitioners to pay the cost of Rs. 5000, as directed vide Order Dated 28.11.2008, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. 5. Inspite of the peremptory order of this Court dated 21.01.2009, as the Appellants-Petitioners did not pay the cost within the prescribed time, the appeal, i.e. FAD No. 146 of 2006 stood dismissed on 18.03.2009, for non-compliance of the peremptory order. 6. The present Respondent-Opp. Party filed a writ application before this Court for implementation of the Judgment of the State Education Tribunal dated 24.12.2004 in GIA Case No. 65 of 2004, which was registered as WP(C) No. 3465 of 2009. The said writ application was taken up for consideration & the Division Bench of this Court while taking note of the fact that the appeal filed by the Appellants-Petitioners i.e. FAO No. 146 of 2006, has been dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory Order Dated 21.01.2009, disposed of the writ application directing the present Appellants-Petitioners to comply with the order of the State Education Tribunal passed in GIA Case No. 65 of 2004 within a period of four months from the date of the said order, if no other application is pending against the order of this Court dated 21.01.2009, dismissing FAO No. 146 of 2006. 7. The Appellants-Petitioners filed an application for restoration of FAO No. 146 of 2006 on 11.09.2009, which was registered as CMAPL No. 320 of 2009. Along with the said application for restoration, the Appellants-Petitioners filed the present application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 282 days in filing the restoration application. 8. In the meantime, as the order of this Court dated 17.04.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 3465 of 2009 was not implemented, the Respondent-Opp. Party filed an application for implementation of the said order, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 11305 of 2009. The said application for implementation of Order Dated 17.04.2009 was disposed of by this Court vide Order Dated 14.09.2009 directing the Appellants-Petitioners to comply with the said Order Dated 17.04.2009 by the end of November, 2009. Party filed an application for implementation of the said order, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 11305 of 2009. The said application for implementation of Order Dated 17.04.2009 was disposed of by this Court vide Order Dated 14.09.2009 directing the Appellants-Petitioners to comply with the said Order Dated 17.04.2009 by the end of November, 2009. This Court further observed that if the said order is not complied with by the end of November, 2009, contempt proceeding shall be initiated against the present Appellants-Petitioners, who were Opp. Parties in the said writ application. 9. The Respondent-Opp. Party filed its objection to the present application for condonation of delay. The main objection of the Respondent Opp. Party is that no ground has been taken in the present application, explaining the inordinate delay in filing the restoration application & that the said application has been filed at a belated stage to get the appeal restored, only to avoid the order/direction of this Court dated 14.09.2009, passed in W.P.(C) No. 3465 of 2009. 10. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants-Petitioners relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, ; G. Ramegowda, Major and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, ; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Akolkar, ; State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Others, & a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa and Others Vs. Kantilata Sarangi submitted that the question relating to condonation of delay should be liberally considered, particularly when the State is the Appellant. In this regard, it is submitted that as the State Government is an impersonal machinery, they cannot be treated on the same footing as that of a private party & implicit in the very nature of the Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the State represents the larger public interest, some latitude must be given to the State, when it files an application for condonation of delay. 11. Shri B. Routray, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Opp. Party has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the State represents the larger public interest, some latitude must be given to the State, when it files an application for condonation of delay. 11. Shri B. Routray, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Opp. Party has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another in support of his contention that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe & the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Accordingly, it is submitted that no special privilege can be bestowed on the State, especially when no grounds have been taken in the present application, explaining the inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. 12. In the instant case, on a perusal of the present application filed for condonation of delay, it is seen that the only ground regarding delay has been stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application, which are extracted below: 3. That it is submitted that there is no intentional delay or negligence to deposit the cost as ordered by the Hon'ble Court. For non-compliance of the order for which FAO is dismissed. 4. That the letter having been sent from the Govt. to the Inspector of Schools. Bhadrak. The letter being in receipt by Appellant No.3, inspector of Schools rushed to the Cells Office for preferring this Misc. Case & as such Appellant No.3 is authorized to prefer this Misc. Case CMAPL. There is no doubt that the question of condonation of delay should be liberally considered by the Courts for the cause of substantial justice & certain amount of latitude is permissible where State & its functionaries are litigants before the Court, but that does not mean that when no sufficient cause has been shown & no plausible explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court, the so-called liberal attitude should be taken in all cases, where the State Government is the Appellant. The casual & careless approach of the State & its functionaries is evident from the fact that the appeal (FAO No. 146 of 2006) against the Judgment-of the State Education Tribunal was filed after a delay of 376 days & the same having been dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order, the present restoration application has been filed after a delay of 282 days. 13. It is settled law that time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person who is guilty of culpable negligence. (See Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, ; and K.R. Mudgal and Others Vs. R.P. Singh and Others, ). Applying the principles of law, as discussed above, to the facts of the present case & considering the grounds taken in the present application, I find no sufficient & bona fide cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. 14. This application for condonation of delay is rejected. Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed. CMAPL No. 320 of 2009. In view of the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, this CMAPL is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Final Result : Dismissed