Judgment :- Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 854 days in filing the writ appeal against the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9053 of 2012. 2. The writ court passed a common order on 10.4.2012 on the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and others, directing the respondents therein to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.216, Finance (PC) Department dated 22.03.1993 to the petitioners therein and revise their pensionary benefits and to pay arrears. 3. The instant application has been filed on the following ground : The copy of the order was received by the petitioners on 11.06.2012. In similar cases, after getting legal opinion, some writ appeals were filed and they were dismissed by this court on 22.8.2012 and the Special Leave petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 28.1.2013. Thereafter, the Government sought the service particulars of the individual writ petitioners and the expenditure involved with regard to the same, from the third petitioner. The third petitioner got all information only in the last week of March, 2013 relating to 500 writ petitions. Thereafter the proposal of the third petitioner was considered by the Government and the Government issued the Government order dated 18.4.2013. Subsequently, this Court by an order dated 18.11.2013 dismissed a batch of writ petitions holding that the writ petitioners therein are not entitled to the benefit of selection grade/special grade by relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court. Thereafter, the grounds of appeal was approved by the Special Government Pleader on 5.2.2014 and as such, the writ appeal has been filed with an application for condonation of delay of 854 days. 4. The object of prescribing the time limit for preferring an appeal to the higher forum is to set the controversy at rest. Secondly, rights which accrued in favour of the successful party cannot be jeopardized by filing the appeal with an inordinate delay. The petitioners seeking condonation of delay must specify that no right has accrued in favour of the other party after the specified limitation period is over and the other party will not be prejudiced in any manner. The petitioners have also not established that the delay was bona fide. The petitioners seeking condonation of delay must specify that no right has accrued in favour of the other party after the specified limitation period is over and the other party will not be prejudiced in any manner. The petitioners have also not established that the delay was bona fide. Thus, we are not satisfied with the reasons stated by the petitioner as sufficient and justifiable. 5. The Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 has observed that if there is an inordinate delay, strict approach for condonation of delay has to be followed. 6. In view of the fore goings, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. However, we make it clear that the rejection of this application may not be cited as a precedent on the question of law to be decided in the appropriate case. Consequently, the writ appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself.