JUDGMENT : Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1) The instant interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 211 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment dt. 6.2.2023 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No. 3665 of 2019. 2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was forwarded to Deputy Director of the applicants’ department through a noting dt. 14.3.2023 and it was placed before the Additional Chief Secretary on 21.3.2023, who then asked for discussion on the matter with the service record. It is stated that thereafter proposal to seek the service record from the Civil Surgeon was moved and it was approved on 28.4.2023. The Civil Surgeon, Palamu then sent the record through his letter dt. 3.5.2023. Thereafter the file was again placed before the Additional Secretary on 15.5.2023 and a decision was then taken to send the file to the Advocate General for his opinion on 22.5.2023. 3) It is stated that the Advocate General recommended for filing of appeal on 13.6.2023 and then the file was sent for preparing grounds of appeal which was prepared on 1.7.2023. The file was then put up for approval of the Additional Chief Secretary on 19.7.2023 who asked for further discussion on the same day. 4) It is stated that there was further revision of the grounds of appeal on13.9.2023, draft of the appeal was finally approved on 4.10.2023 and the appeal was filed on 10.10.2023. 5) It is stated that the delay occurred on account of procedural technicalities and was not deliberate and also because there are several layers of decision making in the government which consumed much time. 6) From the record, it is clear that the judgment of learned Single Judge was pronounced on 6.2.2023 in WP(S) No. 3665 of 2019 in the presence of the counsel for the applicants. But application for issuance of the certified copy of the said judgment was made five months later on 7.7.2023 and it was obtained on 18.7.2023 and the appeal itself came to be filed, admittedly on 10.10.2023. But application for issuance of the certified copy of the said judgment was made five months later on 7.7.2023 and it was obtained on 18.7.2023 and the appeal itself came to be filed, admittedly on 10.10.2023. 7) The applicants were undoubtedly aware that the limitation for filing the Letters Patent Appeal is only 30 days from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was obtained, but it appears that the file was moved from table to table mechanically, and even after the Advocate General recommended for filing of appeal on 13.6.2023, almost four months later, the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 8) Merely because the applicants are a Government department, they cannot claim that the delay is to be condoned mechanically because there is no separate period of limitation prescribed for the Government departments. 9) In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another , [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ] , the Supreme Court held: “25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11-9- 2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8- 1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four months. 26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 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 bona fides, 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.” (emphasis supplied) 10) These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 11) The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd. , [ (2022) 3 SCC 159 ] , Pr. 11) The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd. , [ (2022) 3 SCC 159 ] , Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd. , [ (2022) 2 SCC 327 ] , Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others , [ (2021) 11 SCC 557 ] , Union of India & Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another , [ (2022) 9 SCC 263 ] , and State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others , [ (2022) 9 SCC 266 ] 12) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR , [ 2024 INSC 262 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489] , the Supreme Court held that it could not look into the merits of the matter as long as it is not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of long and inordinate delay; that it hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning gross delay of more than 12 years; length of delay is a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not; from the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation; once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his long inaction, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. It was reiterated while considering plea for condonation of delay, Court must not start with the merits of the main case and the Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It declared that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. 13) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary , Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. It declared that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. 13) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary , Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024 14) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the applicants have been negligent in taking steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal and they have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the same. 15) Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 16) All pending applications shall stand closed.