B.R.SARANGI, J. - (1.)ASSAILING the order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.171 of 2008, the State of Orissa has preferred this appeal under Section 24 - C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 before this Court and has also filed an application bearing Misc. Case No.148 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 706 days in preferring the appeal.
(2.)AS required under the provisions of Section 24 -C of the Orissa Education Act, 1968, the appeal has to be preferred within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of the judgment. In the case at hand, the Education Tribunal passed the impugned judgment on 14.01.2011 and the appeal was preferred on 18.02.2013 i.e., after lapse of 766 days and excluding the limitation period of 60 days, there is a gross delay of 706 days.
Section -5 of the Limitation Act reads as follows:

" Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. - Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. "

(3.)WHILE construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree -holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired, the decree -holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree -holder by lapse of time should not be light -heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. Applying this analogy to the present case, the "sufficient cause" has been indicated in paragraphs -4 to 6 of the Misc. Case filed by the appellants for condonation of delay, which reads as follows:
"4. That, on 01.11.2012, the file returned from the law Department with the decision of Government to prefer appeal challenging orders dt.14.01.2011 passed in GIA Case No.171/2008 before the Honble High Court.

5. That, thereafter relevant documents were collected and proposal was submitted to the office of the Advocate General, Orissa, Cuttack for preparation of FAO vide letter No. 2141/HE, dated 21.01.2013.

6. That, the office of Advocate General, Odisha called for officers well aware of the issue to take up discussion in the matter fixing 31.01.2013 and after such discussions were taken up on 31.01.2013, further documents/papers as required were supplied to the office of the Advocate General, Odisha to finalise the draft Appeal Memo. Thereafter, further discussions were held to finalise the draft on 08.02.2013."