JUDGMENT : MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of above-mentioned appeals. 2. The appellants are in appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 07.08.2015. Vide the impugned judgment the workmen were held entitled to Rs. 6 lacs as compensation each on account of their wrongful termination. It may be noticed that initially in the award of the Labour Court, they were held entitled to re-instatement with back-wages with three months' salary for each completed year of service, which in the instant case was 16 years. Learned Single Judge modified the same and awarded an compensation of Rs. 6 lacs each when the writ petition was filed by the present appellants. Appeals have been filed with a delay of 241 days. 3. In the application it has been averred that even though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was rendered on 07.08.2015, copy of the same was applied for on 12.10.2015 by the office of learned Advocate General and delivered to the appellant's office on 16.10.2015. This singular fact renders the appeal liable to a dismissal when there is no explanation as to why the Advocate General office applied for certified copy after two months, when the limitation to file the appeal is thirty days. Such laxity from the office of Advocate General at least cannot be condoned as its officials and staffs are well conversant with procedure of the High Court It is then stated in the application that the law officer gave his opinion on 21.11.2015 i.e. after more than one month of the receipt of the certified copy of judgment. 4. It is further stated in para 4 of the application that second opinion was sought from another law officer on 26.11.2015, who gave his opinion on 01.12.2015 and thereafter third opinion was sought on 05.12.2015, which was given on 21.12.2015. It is after this exercise, the Advocate General gave note on 06.01.2016, recommending the filing of the present appeal, which opinion was communicated to the appellant vide memo dated 15.01.2016 and eventually received the approval of the Government for filing of the appeal on 05.02.2016, which was communicated to the Division Forest Officer on 02.03.2016. The appeals were eventually filed on 25.04.2016, the date shown on the affidavit. 5. We are not inclined to condone the delay. The appeals were eventually filed on 25.04.2016, the date shown on the affidavit. 5. We are not inclined to condone the delay. The appellants, who were the writ petitioners knew their fate when the judgment was rendered on 07.08.2015 and yet they applied for certified copy on 12.10.2015. The other reasons given in the application tracking the journey of the file through series of legal opinions solicited, repeatedly by the Advocate General Office, only reflects an uncondonable lapse. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Seshachalam, 2007(10) SCC 137 as follows:- “ Some of the respondents might have filed representations but filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or latches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or latches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 6. In view of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr, 2012(2) SCC (Crl.) 580, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- (13) 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 bonafide 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. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 7. In view of the aforesaid extracted observations and the reasons given in the application, where the file has shuffled between one law officer and another three times over, before it get approval of the Advocate General would be no ground to condone the delay as we do not construe it to be a sufficient cause. The State as a litigant cannot be treated differently than an ordinary litigant by applying different yard sticks in the matter of condonation of delay or otherwise, particularly when it is singularly the largest litigant before the Courts and propounds a litigation policy to curtail its own lapses and reduce litigation. Even otherwise, we find that equities have been well settled as workmen lost their engagement in 2001 and we are informed that at least two of them have expired. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to condone the delay. Applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed. 9. Since, the applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed, the appeals also stand dismissed. 10. The amount as mandate by the learned Single Judge shall now be paid forthwith to the claimants within a period of two weeks.