### Absence of Cogent Explanation for Inordinate Delay Warrants Dismissal of Writ Appeal Without Merits Examination

The Appellants (Union of India and CRPF officials) filed a writ appeal challenging the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10854/2019, which had allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent, a CRPF Constable

However, the appeal was preferred after a delay of 121 days

The Appellants filed I.A. No. 01/2026 seeking condonation of this delay

Upon inquiry by the Court, the Appellants failed to provide a plausible explanation or cogent reason for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal

1. Whether the Appellants established "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 121 days in filing the writ appeal

2. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches in light of established judicial precedents regarding stale claims

The Court applied the doctrine of limitation and the principles governing "delay and laches" in service-related matters.

It relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652, which established that while continuing wrongs may allow for some flexibility, stale claims affecting settled rights generally cannot be entertained

It further applied C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115, which held that representations regarding stale or time-barred matters do not revive a dead claim or furnish a fresh cause of action, and that misplaced sympathy in condoning such delays results in a drain on the public exchequer and encourages indiscipline

The Court examined the Appellants' application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01/2026) and found that the 121-day delay was not supported by any cogent reason or plausible explanation

Applying the ratio from Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob, the Court reasoned that the law does not permit the revival of stale claims unless there is a continuing wrong or a justified reason for the lapse of time

Since the Appellants failed to meet the threshold of providing a "cogent reason" for the delay, the Court determined that there were no grounds to exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay, as doing so would ignore the principles of limitation and finality of judgment

Consequently, the High Court rejected I.A. No. 01/2026 and dismissed the writ appeal as barred by limitation