ORDER : Sandeep Shah, J: 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29 th August 2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of 2017 titled “Kailash Chandar Lohar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the three writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, including the writ petition refer to (supra) while observing that NRHM Scheme is being run under the aegis of Panchayati Raj Department, and therefore, the benefit quo the same are to the granted to the petitioner. I.A. No.01/2024: 2. An application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 316 days in filing the present Special Appeal (Writ). 3. A perusal of the contents of Para Nos.2 to 6 will reveal that no reasons, what to say sufficient reasons, have been specified in the application, nor have any details or relevant dates about the processing of the file for filing the appeal been given, and it has merely been stated that the delay was due to administrative decisions and that the delay is minor. We observe that the explanation offered by the appellants is not at all satisfactory. 4. However, we have glanced at the order passed by the writ Court, with a view to satisfy ourselves whether the appellants would suffer irreparable loss if the delay in filing the Special Appeal (Writ) is not condoned. We have glanced at the order passed by the writ Court also to find whether there is any merit in the present Special Appeal (Writ). 5. The respondent (writ petitioner) had filed the writ petitioner stating therein that the petitioner, is having the qualification for the post of LDC and that the petitioner was work on contract basis at T.B. Unit Vallabhnagar (Bhinder), Udiapur under the NRHM Project, since, 08 th May 2008. The petitioner had further stated that subsequently, an advertisement dated 14 th February 2013 was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department inviting applications for appointment to the post of LDC, wherein bonus marks were awarded for each year of work experience as a contractual employee, up to a maximum of 30 marks for three years. The petitioner had further stated that subsequently, an advertisement dated 14 th February 2013 was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department inviting applications for appointment to the post of LDC, wherein bonus marks were awarded for each year of work experience as a contractual employee, up to a maximum of 30 marks for three years. It was the case of the petitioner that although he had applied pursuant to the said advertisement, he was not granted bonus marks based upon the experience certificate on the ground that he was working under the NRHM scheme and not under Panchayati Raj Department and also for the aforesaid reason his experience certificate was not considered. 6. The petitioner had asserted that by an order dated 02 nd October 2010, issued by the Medical and Health Department, all the schemes running under the NRHM or under the Department of Medical and Health, up-to the District level were handed over to the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department for effective operation and proper coordination. It was thus asserted that even the NRHM scheme was handed over to the Panchayati Raj Department, and since the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis under the NRHM scheme, he was also entitled to receive bonus marks. The petitioner also referred to the Circular dated 26 th May 2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, wherein, pursuant to the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, and in light of a judgment passed by this Court, it was observed that the NRHM scheme and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, up to the District level, had been transferred to the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, and the candidates working under these two schemes shall also be entitled for the grant of bonus marks for the work undertaken under the scheme. 7. The respondent, on the other hand, raised an objection before the learned Single Judge that the respondent-appellant was not working under the Panchayati Raj Department or MGNREGA, and therefore, was not entitled for grant of bonus marks as per Rule 273 of Rules of 1996. 8. 7. The respondent, on the other hand, raised an objection before the learned Single Judge that the respondent-appellant was not working under the Panchayati Raj Department or MGNREGA, and therefore, was not entitled for grant of bonus marks as per Rule 273 of Rules of 1996. 8. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments from both sides, allowed the writ petition while relying upon the judgment passed by the Single Bench, in the case of “Pushkar Garg v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.” in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2622 of 2018 and Division Bench judgment in “Tikam Chand Verma & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.” in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7316 of 2016 and clearly observed that the petitioners are entitled for the same relief has granted to other similarly situated persons. 9. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the NHRM Scheme was being run by the Medical & Health Department and not by the Panchayati Raj Department. He thus asserts that the services rendered under departments other than MGNREGA cannot be considered for the grant of bonus marks, in view of the clear language of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. He further refers to the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12914 of 2021 titled “Giresh Dindor v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” to submit that the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case referred to (supra) has attained finality, as even the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.366 of 2022 filed against the above-mentioned order has been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 10. He has further relied upon the judgment dated 19 th February 2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.292 of 2024 titled “Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General, however, candidly admitted that after considering the case of ’Giresh Dindor’, a Division Bench of this Court, in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.182 of 2025 titled “State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ramdeve Mali”, has already dismissed an identical appeal filed by the State Government. 12. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, we may, first of all, refer to the Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj, Rules, 1996, which provides as under:- “ Rule 273. v. Ramdeve Mali”, has already dismissed an identical appeal filed by the State Government. 12. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, we may, first of all, refer to the Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj, Rules, 1996, which provides as under:- “ Rule 273. Written test.__ The Committee may hold a written test for all categories of [post except drivers, Class IV and post specified in clause (iii) of sub-section 2 of the Section 89]. [The examination shall be conducted as per directions of the State Govt. (Deleted) D.E.C. will prepare the merit list on such basis: Provided that selections for the various posts shall be made in accordance with the general directions given by the State Government from time to time in this respect. It may not be necessary to call the candidate for interview if so provided in those directions. [Proviso Deleted] [Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. Explanation__ Wherever percentage of the marks cannot be ascertained due to grade awarded to the candidate in the particular examination, the median of the grade awarded to the candidate in such examination shall be basis for the preparation of the merit list.] [Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Class IV, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis at such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Secondary examination from a recognized Board and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on the post of assistant (Saharan Karamchari) in MGNREGA scheme in the state.]” 13. A perusal of the Rule will reveal that a proviso was added by way of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 with effect from 30 th January 2013, wherein, as far as recruitment to the post of LDC is concerned, the weightage to be given was specified for the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on various posts under MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. 14. Admittedly, a perusal of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, as also the order dated 02 nd October 2010 and the Circular dated 26 th May 2017 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition), clearly reveals that, up to the District level, the services of various persons working under the NRHM Scheme department was transferred to the Panchayati Raj Department, and thereafter, the NRHM scheme was implemented by the Panchayati Raj Department. It is thus clear that the work undertaken by the petitioner was in a scheme administered and controlled by the Panchayati Raj Department, and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the grant of bonus marks based upon the experience certificate possessed by the writ petitioner. 15. Furthermore, the issue in this regard is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment dated 08 th May 2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.182 of 2025 titled “State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ramdev Mali”, wherein the learned Division Bench observed as under:- “8. Mr. 15. Furthermore, the issue in this regard is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment dated 08 th May 2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.182 of 2025 titled “State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ramdev Mali”, wherein the learned Division Bench observed as under:- “8. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate General, however, refers to the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12914 of 2021 titled as “Giresh Dindor vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” to submit that the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of “Giresh Dindor” (supra) has now attained finality as D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.366 of 2022 has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 9. On this issue, we observe that the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition in the present case bestowed due consideration to the decision in “Giresh Dindor” (supra) and observed that the decision in the case of “Sumer Singh” (supra) was not brought to the notice of the writ Court when S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12914 of 2021 came to be dismissed. We shall also indicate that the Special Appeal preferred by “Giresh Dindor” was dismissed without hearing him as no one appeared on his behalf even in the second round when the said Special Appeal was called out for hearing. 10. In the order dated 17th October 2022, the writ Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6005 of 2013 with connected matters titled “Sumer Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”. We see that this is not in dispute that the decision in the case of “Sumer Singh” (supra) attained finality after the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Rajasthan vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.14536 of 2021 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is also recorded in the order dated 17th October 2022, a copy of which is tendered by the learned counsel of the respondent, that the Department took a decision in its meeting held on 6th July 2022 as reflected in the communication dated 15 th July 2022 that it shall not seek review of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition. 11. 11. In the aforesaid state of affairs, this Court finds that the present Special Appeal is prima-facie bereft of merits. We have taken this decision also for the reason that the writ Court in the order dated 17th October 2022 held that “Ramdev Mali” has the same status similar to “Sumer Singh”. We would also observe that judicial discipline and proprietary require that a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench is accepted as binding by another Bench of co equal strength and only course open to the latter Bench is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration of the matter by a Larger Bench if the latter Bench records its disagreement with the previous decisions but no such ground has been pleaded by the appellants in this case nor we see any reason to disagree with the decision in “Sumer Singh”.” 16. As far as the judgment passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.292 of 2024 titled “Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, dated 19 th February 2025, is concerned, the same pertained to services rendered by the petitioner therein under RIICO, which is an instrumentality of the State Government and not the State Government itself. Needless to emphasize, RIICO is only an instrumentality of the State Government, and not a department thereof. Thus, the ratio of the judgment in “Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” is not applicable to the case at hand and is clearly distinguishable. 17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by the State Government is prima facie bereft of merit. 18. In the present case, the appeal was filed on 08 th September 2024, whereas the impugned order was passed on 29 th August 2023. Only grounds taken in the Application under section 5 is that there were administrative lapses and delay in filing of appeal is minor as also it has been stated that due to change of Government as well as change of Counsels, some delay had occasioned inadvertently. 19. The learned Additional Advocate General prays that the appellant being The State of Rajasthan, some latitude should be granted to the Government as some delay takes place in administrative decisions. 20. 19. The learned Additional Advocate General prays that the appellant being The State of Rajasthan, some latitude should be granted to the Government as some delay takes place in administrative decisions. 20. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to certain latitude being granted to the Government is heard to be rejected as the issue in this regard is no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr.” (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with issue of filing of appeal by the Government agencies has specifically stated as under:- “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. Though it was stated by the Department that they 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. 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. 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 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 21. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Commissioner of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin” 2021 SCC Online SC 3518 stated as under:- “2. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No. 9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legalposition has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 . Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities.” 22. Even recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy through his legal representatives” 2024 SCC Online SC 489 has dealt with the issue of limitation and again held that the Government cannot claim any latitude and has to be treated like any other litigant and further observed as under:- “35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case.” 23. In the present case, the appellants have not been able to prove that they were diligent in prosecuting the matter and no sufficient cause whatsoever has been shown for condoning the delay. Thus on the ground of the delay itself the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. I.A. No.01/2024 is dismissed. 25. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.779 of 2025 is, therefore, dismissed.