Condonation of delay fails where a later change of opinion is not sufficient cause for belated departmental appeal.

Delay in filing the departmental appeal was not condoned because the explanation for the 86-day lapse did not amount to sufficient cause. Although the Tribunal recognised that delay could be condoned where adequate justification was shown, it held that an earlier decision not to appeal, later altered in a subsequent meeting, was only a change of opinion and not a valid basis for reopening the matter. The application for condonation of delay was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 86 days in filing the departmental appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that although it had power to condone delay where sufficient cause was shown, the explanation offered did not justify the belated filing. The departmental decision not to appeal had been taken earlier and was later revised in a subsequent meeting, but that change of opinion was not regarded as sufficient cause for reopening the matter and condoning the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

---