JUDGMENT 1. Heard on IA No. 3731 of 2014, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The delay is of 2775 days. 3. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4761/2006(s). The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge taking into consideration large number of cases decided on the issue in favour of the petitioner and the fact that the issue involved had already attained finality on the basis of the view taken by the Supreme Court. 4. Challenging the said order, which was passed on 23.08.2006, this appeal has been filed in which the following averment has been made for seeking condonation of delay:- 5. On going through the aforesaid averments, it is clear that very casual approach has been made by the appellant/State in seeking condonation of delay. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay between 2006 to 2014. 6. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Limited, AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case, there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual-manner in which the Government departments are functioning-showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation: 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. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation: 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. 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 bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 7. The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amar Nath Yadav, (2014) 2 SCC 422 . 8. In the circumstances, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation seeking condonation of such a huge delay, in our considered view, no case for condonation of delay is made out. 9. Consequently, application (IA No. 3731 of 2014) deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) to be recoverable by the appellant/State from the erring official. 10. As a result, the writ appeal is also dismissed.