Inordinate delay without satisfactory day-to-day explanation warrants dismissal of appeal on grounds of limitation.

The appellant, Murli Manohar Sahu, filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by a Single Judge in WPS No. 1096 of 2021, which had dismissed his original writ petition

Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026, seeking condonation of a 178-day delay in filing the writ appeal

The matter came before the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh to determine if the delay could be excused to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits.

1. Whether the appellant provided a sufficient and satisfactory explanation to condone the 178-day delay in filing the writ appeal

2. Whether a belated service-related claim can be entertained in the absence of a "continuing wrong" or a day-to-day explanation for the delay

Union of India & Others v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652, which establishes that belated service claims should generally be rejected unless they involve a "continuing wrong" that creates a recurring injury, and even then, such claims must not affect the settled rights of third parties

C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and others (2008) 10 SCC 115, which holds that stale or dead claims cannot be revived by subsequent representations and that "misplaced sympathy" in condoning inordinate delays leads to administrative indiscipline and an unjust drain on the public exchequer

The Court perused the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) and observed that the appellant failed to furnish a day-to-day explanation for the 178-day delay

The Court noted that in the legal framework governing service matters, limitation is strictly applied unless a satisfactory cause is shown to prevent the claim from becoming "stale"

By applying the precedents in Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob, the Court reasoned that the appellant's failure to justify the timeline meant the appeal was barred by laches

The Court emphasized that allowing such a delay without a rigorous explanation would contravene the settled principles of law regarding the finality of administrative and judicial decisions

Consequently, the High Court rejected I.A. No. 1 of 2026 and dismissed the writ appeal as barred by limitation