. The appellant’s writ petition for salary from July, 1997 till he performed his duties at§Sarangarh has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. The appellant has preferred this writ appeal on the ground that his claim for interest on the unpaid salary has not been considered. The appellant;has also tiled an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit a:s the instant appeal has been tiled with a delay of 84 days. . Heard learned counsel for the appellant on his application forcondonation of delay. The dispute regarding non—payment of salary pertains to the year 1997-98 The reasdns assigned/for tiling the instant appeal with a delay of 84 days are that the appellant is a retired employee, he is suffering from various diseases l , and till date he has not received retiral dues. However, the appellant has not filed any'medical certificate to substantiate that he is suffering from any ‘ ailment. ‘ é \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appea! No.66 of 2011 Present Shri R K Kesharwani counsel forthe appellant Shri M P S Bhatla Deputy Govt Advocate forthe State/respondents i x Hon’ble Shri RM. Chandrakar, JJ. JUDGMENT (25-2-201 1)! z ‘ DIViswn Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & ' l i \ x i i APPELLANT Vijay Shankar Yadav, S/o Shri Heera Lal Yadav, aged about 5C) years, Occupation Patwari, Tehsil Saran arh, District Raigarh Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Chhattlsgarh Through The ] Secretary, Govt of Chhattrsgarh Revenue Deparfment Mantralaya DKS Bhawan Ralpur(CG) 2. The Collector, Dlstrlct Raigarh , 3. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Sarangarh, . ‘ District Raigarh W.‘ Q . Thus, considering that the dispute pertains to the year 1997-98 and the claim ‘is only with regard to interest on salary which was not paid to hrm at the relevant penod and that the appellant has not annexed any documentary ewdence regarding his ailment on account of which he could not prefer this appeal Within tlme we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed tor establish sumcient cause for condoning the delay of 84 days .Accordrngly, the application for condonatron of delay Is rejected Consequently, the writ appeal stands dismissed as barred by llmltatlon Sci/- RANGANATH CHANDRAKAR Judge //*