Delay condonation requires a day-by-day explanation; ministerial acknowledgment does not amount to admission of a time-barred appeal.

A 9-day delay in filing an appeal was not condoned because the explanation had to account for the delay day by day and was unsupported by affidavit evidence. The contention that delay had already been effectively condoned through receipt acknowledgment and subsequent stay proceedings was rejected, as a ministerial acknowledgment did not amount to any specific order admitting a time-barred appeal or condoning delay. The appeal was therefore treated as barred by time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal of 9 days should be condoned and the appeal treated as filed within time.

Analysis: The delay was required to be explained satisfactorily for each day. No affidavit was filed to support the explanation that the delay occurred in the office of the Senior Departmental Representative after dispatch of the memo of appeal. The plea that the appeal had already been condoned because receipt had been acknowledged and stay proceedings had been taken up was rejected, since a ministerial acknowledgment did not amount to any specific order condoning delay or admitting a time-barred appeal.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was held to be barred by time.

---