JUDGMENT : Javed Iqbal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the application being CM No. 7313/2021 accompanying LPA No. 146/2021, filed by the applicants for seeking condonation of delay of 1485 days in filing the said LPA against the Judgment dated 10.08.2017, passed in SWP No. 2171/2011, in case titled as Hidayat Ali Vs. State and Ors. 2. The facts emerging from the perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner/non-applicant herein filed SWP No. 2171/2011 supra against the respondents/applicants herein before this Court seeking quashment of order dated 21.07.2011, issued by respondent in the petition/applicant 4 herein, besides seeking a direction against the respondents-applicants herein to count his entire period of service towards pay fixation, gratuity and other monetary benefits without any deduction, including the direction for release of pension and other retiral benefits. The petition supra came to be filed by the petitioner non-applicant herein on the premise that he had previously been removed by the applicants herein from service while working as Head Constable in terms of order dated 29.06.2004, which order came to be assailed by him in SWP No. 1035/2004 before this Court which petition came to be disposed of on 21.12.2006, quashing the order of his removal from service, however, giving a liberty to the applicants herein to start a fresh enquiry from the stage of show cause notice against petitioner/non-applicant herein. 3. Pursuant to the Judgment dated 21.12.2006 supra, the applicants herein re-instated the petitioner/non-applicant herein and came to be served with a show cause notice dated 29.01.2007, to which the non-applicant herein though filed a reply, yet the applicants herein did not conduct any enquiry against the petitioner/non-applicant herein and he in the meantime reached to the age of superannuation on 29.09.2010 and retired in terms of order dated 10.06.2010, whereafter the applicants herein issued order No. 1963 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011 qua the service of the petitioner non-applicant herein and treated the period w.e.f. 29.06.2004 to February, 2007 to be a “leave period” without pay in terms of Regulation 202 J&K CSR 1956. 4. 4. The petitioner/non-applicant herein aggrieved of order dated 08.08.2011 supra preferred SWP No. 2171/2011 supra which came to be allowed by the writ Court in terms of Judgment dated 10th August, 2017 and while setting aside the order dated 08.08.2011 the writ Court directed the respondents/applicants herein to decide the period of the non-applicant herein, for which he remained out of service, in terms of Regulation 108-B J&K CSR 1956, as on duty, and to work out and to pay consequential benefits as shall be due to the petitioner/non-applicant herein. 5. The respondents/applicants herein aggrieved of the Judgment dated 10.08.2017, have preferred the aforesaid time barred LPA wherein condonation of delay is being sought in terms of the instant application. 6. The non-applicant herein has filed objections to the instant application and seeks its dismissal on the grounds urged therein. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before proceeding to advert to the application in hand the following averments made therein need to be referred hereunder being relevant herein: - 2. That, judgment dated 10.08.2017 was passed by Hon’ble Writ Court in SWP No. 2171/2011, titled Hidayat Ali vs. State and others. 3. That, appellants received letter dated 14.08.2017 from Ld. Sr. AAG, Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar where under it was intimated that Hon’ble Writ Court has passed the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017 and for filing of appeal against the said judgment, necessary sanction be obtained from Govt. of J&K. 4. That, in the process the appellants were required to collect the records from subordinate offices and also to obtain legal advice from Ld. Counsel and sanction from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The examination of the matter and consideration of the question of filing of an appeal at various levels and the unavoidable/unforeseen circumstances which occurred during the said period upon which was beyond the control of appellants obviously led to consumption of time. 5. That, accordingly, matter was taken up with the office of Dy. Inspector General of Police, DIG, CKR, Srinagar vide letter dated 21.08.2017, for scrutinizing the matter and taking further action for assailing impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017. 6. That, DIG CKR, Srinagar vide letter dated 30.08.2017 asked DPO Srinagar to prepare draft memorandum of Appeal and place the same before Ld. Sr. Inspector General of Police, DIG, CKR, Srinagar vide letter dated 21.08.2017, for scrutinizing the matter and taking further action for assailing impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017. 6. That, DIG CKR, Srinagar vide letter dated 30.08.2017 asked DPO Srinagar to prepare draft memorandum of Appeal and place the same before Ld. Sr. AAG, Hon’ble Court for Legal opinion before taking up the matter with Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, J&K for obtaining necessary sanction for assailing the impugned judgment. 7. That, in the meanwhile, certified copy of impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017 was received from CPO, High Court of J&K, vide letter No. 19.08.2017. 8. That, in pursuance to directions of DIG, CKR, Srinagar, Draft Memorandum of letters Patent Appeal along with all the relevant record was submitted to Ld. Sr. AAG, J&K, vide DPO, Srinagar letter dated 13.09.2017 for specific comments/opinion with regard to challenging the impugned judgment. 9. That, Ld. Sr. AAG, Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar vide letter dated 28.09.2017 suggested this office to take up the matter with Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for obtaining necessary guidance/sanction for challenging the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017. 10. That, accordingly, the matter was taken up with the office of Dy. Inspector General of Police, DIG, CKR, Srinagar vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 05.10.2017 for taking up matter with Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Govt. of J&K. 11. That, Dy. Inspector General of Police, DIG, CKR, Srinagar vide letter dated 13.10.2017 took up the matter with Inspector General of Police, KZ, Srinagar with request to took up the matter with PHQ J&K for obtaining sanction. 12. That, ZPHQ, KZ, Srinagar vide letter dated 14.10.2017, asked to submit draft Memorandum of Appeal along with relevant papers/documents to PHQ J&K. 13. That, accordingly vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 18.10.2017 necessary record was submitted to PHQ J&K. 14. That, PHQ J&K vide signal dated 15.11.2017 sought further records into the matter which accordingly was provided vide DPO letter dated 30.11.2017. 15. That, PHQ J&K after scrutinizing the matter in detail requested Home Department Government of J&K, vide letter dated 21.12.2017 for accord of necessary sanction to file and conduct LPA against said judgment dated 10.08.2017. 16. That, Home Department, Government of J&K vide letter dated 27.02.2018 sought some clarification into the matter before proceeding ahead for accord of sanction for filing of LPA against the impugned judgment. 17. 16. That, Home Department, Government of J&K vide letter dated 27.02.2018 sought some clarification into the matter before proceeding ahead for accord of sanction for filing of LPA against the impugned judgment. 17. That, in pursuance to said communication of Home Department, J&K, PHQ J&K vide letter No. 07.04.2018 sought necessary reply to the same. 18. That, in response to said communication of Home Department r/w PHQ, necessary report/clarification into the matter was submitted by DPO Srinagar vide DPO letter dated 12.04.2018. 19. That, vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 10.05.2018, a rejoinder/reminder was addressed to PHQ J&K for obtaining the necessary action from Government of J&K for challenging the impugned judgment. 20. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 28.05.2018 sought further clarification into the matter from DPO Srinagar which accordingly was responded vide DPO letter dated 13.06.2018. 21. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 14.07.2018 submitted necessary clarification into the matter to Home Department, Government of J&K. 22. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 13.09.2017 again sought some information into the matter which accordingly was responded vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 06.10.2018. 23. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 19.10.2018 requested Government of J&K Home Department for accord of necessary sanction for assailing impugned judgment. 24. That, DPO Srinagar vide letter dated 07.06.2019 requested PHQ J&K for accord of necessary sanction and accordingly PHQ J&K vide letter dated 06.07.2019 while reiterating the facts and circumstance attached with the matter again requested Home Department, J&K in this behalf. 25. That, Home Department, Government of J&K while scrutinizing the matter at its level, sought further record, reports and clarifications vide letter dated 30.07.2019 through PHQ J&K and accordingly PHQ J&K vide its letter dated 01.08.2019 and 09.08.2019 sought the same from DPO Srinagar. 26. That, the said record and report was submitted to PHQ J&K vide this office letter dated 01.08.2019 and 17.08.2019 accordingly. 27. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 09.08.2019 apprised Home Department and requested for accord of sanction for filing of LPA against the impugned judgment. 28. That, Home Department, J&K vide letter dated 30.09.2019 again sought some further report and record into the matter and in pursuance of same PHQ J&K vide letter dated 22.10.2019 asked DPO Srinagar to provide the same. 29. That, necessary report in response to the said communication of Home Department/PHQ J&K was submitted vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 23.10.2019. 30. 28. That, Home Department, J&K vide letter dated 30.09.2019 again sought some further report and record into the matter and in pursuance of same PHQ J&K vide letter dated 22.10.2019 asked DPO Srinagar to provide the same. 29. That, necessary report in response to the said communication of Home Department/PHQ J&K was submitted vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 23.10.2019. 30. That, vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 18.11.2019 PHQ J&K was again apprised of the exigency of the matter and requested for necessary sanction/guidance in this behalf. 31. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 28.11.2019 reiterated the request to Home Department for accord of necessary sanction for assailing the impugned judgment. 32. That, Home Department, J&K vide letter dated 01.01.2020 sought some record/report into the matter through PHQ J&K vide letter dated 03.01.2020. 33. That, vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 10.01.2020 necessary record/report was submitted to Home Department, Government of J&K. 34. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 24.01.2020 submitted necessary report to Home Department with request to accord sanction for filing of LPA in the instant matter. 35. That, vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 23.02.2020 ZPHQ KZ Srinagar was requested to take up the matter with PHQ J&K for necessary guidance/sanction. 36. That, ZPHQ KZ Srinagar vide letter dated 29.02.2020 requested PHQ J&K for accord of necessary directions/sanction on priority. 37. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 07.03.2020 again apprised Home Department, Government of J&K about the legal implications attached with the mater and requested for accord of necessary sanction for filing of LPA. 38. That, Home Department, vide letter dated 06.05.2020 sought some necessary report into the matter through PHQ J&K vide letter dated 12.05.2020. 39. That, in pursuance to said letter of Home Department, coupled with PHQ J&K, necessary reply was submitted vide DPO Srinagar dated 18.05.2020. 40. That, vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 04.08.2020 ZPHQ KZ Srinagar was again reminded and requested to take up the matter with PHQ J&K for accord of necessary sanction. 41. That, ZPHQ KZ Srinagar vide letter dated 13.08.2020 requested PHQ J&K for accord of necessary guidelines/instructions on priority. 42. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 30.09.2020 requested Home Department, J&K for accord of necessary sanction for filing of LPA against the impugned judgment. 43. That, vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 05.06.2021 ZPHQ KZ Srinagar was again requested to take up the matter with Home Department, PHQ J&K. 44. 42. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 30.09.2020 requested Home Department, J&K for accord of necessary sanction for filing of LPA against the impugned judgment. 43. That, vide DPO Srinagar letter dated 05.06.2021 ZPHQ KZ Srinagar was again requested to take up the matter with Home Department, PHQ J&K. 44. That, Home Department vide letter dated 25.05.2021 received through PHQ J&K vide letter dated 05.06.2021 asked for some necessary reports into the matter which accordingly was responded vide DPO letter dated 09.07.2021. 45. That, ZPHQ KZ vide letter dated 29.07.2021 submitted reply to PHQ J&K and PHQ J&K accordingly submitted the same to Government of J&K vide letter dated 20.08.2021. 46. That, PHQ J&K vide letter dated 20.08.2021 again took up the matter with Home Department, Government of J&K for accord of sanction for assailing the impugned judgment. 47. That, time to time correspondences and clarifications were submitted to concerned quarters for accord of sanction for assailing the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2017. 48. That, consideration for assailing the said judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed by Hon’ble Writ Court consumed some time due to the fact that during this period various officers of the Police Department/Government had to shift of Darbar Move that also resulted into the delay of filing the present LPA. 49. That, it deserves kind attention of this Hon’ble Court that after 05th of August 2019, each and every functionary of Government especially District Police Srinagar was facing challenges on different fronts which also led to delay in filing the instant LPA against the said judgment/order. 50. That, it is apt to mention here that from the date of announcement of judgment/order till date various heads of the department have changed and that also resulted into delay in filing the present petition. 51. That, from time to time continuous necessary correspondences were going on to senior formations and Government for accord of sanction for filing of LPA against the said judgment. 52. That, a pandemic, i.e, COVID-19 which throughout the Country unleashed its havoc and District Srinagar was not an exception to the same which badly affected each and every aspect of the administration and routine official/Government work and also court functioning fronts which also led to delay in filing the instant LPA against the said judgment/order. 53. 52. That, a pandemic, i.e, COVID-19 which throughout the Country unleashed its havoc and District Srinagar was not an exception to the same which badly affected each and every aspect of the administration and routine official/Government work and also court functioning fronts which also led to delay in filing the instant LPA against the said judgment/order. 53. That, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 08.03.2021 passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 03 of 2020 in re-cognizance for extension of limitation has been pleased to direct that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Further, the period was extended till 02.10.2021 by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India vide its order dated 23.09.2021 in MA No. 665 of 2021 in SM© No. 03/2020. 54. The Law Department (sanctioning authority) considered the matter on its merits and decided to challenge the Judgment passed by the Ld. Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal before this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly sanction was granted to file LPA by the Law Department, Government of J&K vide letter dated 30.09.2021. 55. Thereafter, the Administrative Department vide communication dated 11.09.2021 requested the Director General of Police J&K to provide necessary assistant and records to the Ld. Standing Counsel. The office of the Director General of Police vide communication dated 20.10.2021 requested the Appellant No. 5 (DPO Srinagar) to provide relevant records to the Ld. Counsel. After receiving the relevant records, the Ld. Standing Counsel took some days for drafting and filing of the Letters Patent Appeal and whatever delay there is that is because of the procedural hassles and importantly because of unavoidable circumstances which were witnessed during this period. 56. That the delay caused in filing the instant LPA was neither deliberate nor willful nor intentional but purely due to procedural requirements as the appellants being the responsible State/UT functionary and had to seek due permission/sanction prior to filing of the appeal and because of situation/circumstances stated above.” 8. 56. That the delay caused in filing the instant LPA was neither deliberate nor willful nor intentional but purely due to procedural requirements as the appellants being the responsible State/UT functionary and had to seek due permission/sanction prior to filing of the appeal and because of situation/circumstances stated above.” 8. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is pertinent to refer to the law on the subject of the Limitation Act which is no more res integra and is settled that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor prescribed by a statute and although Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for an extension of the period of limitation in certain cases and an appellant/applicant, seeking such extension is required to satisfy the Court that there has been sufficient and plausible cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed period. A reference to the judgment of the Apex Court relating to the subject of law of limitation passed in case titled Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Lrs. and Others Vs. Union of India and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1278, would also be relevant herein whrein at para 29 following has been laid down:- “29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.” 9. Keeping the position of law and judgment of the Apex Court supra in mind and reverting back to the case in hand the explanation offered by the applicants herein for seeking condonation of delay in the instant application is that a considerable period of time came to be consumed by them in arriving at a decision for preferring the appeal against the judgment dated 10.08.2017 particularly on account of official procedural requirements and unavoidable circumstances. However, perusal of the averments of the application as are reproduced in the preceding paras would tend to show that no plausible cause or reason has been shown or expressed therein as to why the appeal could not be filed well within time when the applicants herein have had decided to file the same as early as on 21.08.2017 and 30.08.2017 when the matter had been taken up by applicant 4 herein for obtaining sanction from the Law Department and instead the matter have had been tossed between the office of the applicant 1 to 4 herein seeking furnishing of record repeatedly and furnished repeatedly thereto as appears from paras (6) to (46) supra of the application in hand and noticed in the preceding paras. Even no explanation worth the name has been offered in the application as to why and for what reasons the seeking of grant of sanction from the Law Department was delayed which sanction have had been sought as early as on 19.10.2018, whereafter the said process of seeking of sanction seemingly had been abandoned by the applicants herein and in fact had been obtained off late on 30.09.2021. The contents of the application ex-facie suggest that the applicants herein instead of showing a sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay and offering a plausible explanation thereto have instead chosen to refer to the inter-se correspondences with a view to create an impression to demonstrate that the time consumed in preferring the appeal was on account of procedural requirements. Furthermore the application in hand appears to have been filed by the applicants herein with an impression that in seeking condonation of delay, the averments made in the application constitute sufficient cause and plausible explanation and that same as such, would receive a liberal construction in favour of the applicants herein being a Government Department which approach, however, in law, is not tenable or countenanced more so, in view of the decision of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors Vs. Bherulal reported in 2020 (10) SCC 654 ”, wherein at paras 3 and 5 following has been laid down: - “3. Bherulal reported in 2020 (10) SCC 654 ”, wherein at paras 3 and 5 following has been laid down: - “3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government [LAOv.Katiji]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:- (27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. (28) Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. 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. (29) 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 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. (30) 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.” Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded. 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to begiven a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.” A further reference in regard to above to the judgement of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Office of the Chief Post Master General and ors. Vs. Living Mewdia India Ltd and Anr. reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563 ” will also be relevant wherein at para 29 following has been observed: - .................... “29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. And a further reference as well to the judgement of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswam Vs. Bhargavi Amma reported in 2008 (8) SCC 321 ”, would also be advantageous herein wherein at para 13 (iii) besides other principles qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act following came to be provided:- “(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.” 10. Bhargavi Amma reported in 2008 (8) SCC 321 ”, would also be advantageous herein wherein at para 13 (iii) besides other principles qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act following came to be provided:- “(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.” 10. Viewed thus what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove we are of the considered opinion that no sufficient cause or a plausible explanation has been expressed or offered in the application in hand by the applicants warranting condonation of delay in preferring the accompanying appeal, even if, the period w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till the date of filing of appeal is excluded owing to the judgement of the Apex Court passed on account of COVID-19 Pandemic in “Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation order dated 10.01.2022”. The application is found to be without any merit and resultantly is dismissed as a consequence whereof the accompanying LPA No. 146/2021 is also dismissed. 11. It is significant to note here that we appreciate the able assistance rendered in the matter by the appearing counsel for the UT of J&K, Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. B. A. Misri, Advocate appearing on behalf of the non-applicant herein.