2026:CGHC:522-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 962 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Finance Dau Kalyam Singh Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh MANPREET KAUR (Respondent No. 1)

Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.07 10:49:27 +0530 ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Chhattisgarh Pension Kalyan Sangh Branch Raigarh Through Its President Mahadev Prasad Agrawal Aged About 75 Years, S/o N.K. Agrawal R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner)

2 - Accountant General Treasury, Account And Pension Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Add. A.G.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

06.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State on I.A. No.02 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. Also heard Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellant submits that the learned Single Judge on 02.09.2025 passed the impugned order. Thereafter, the Secretary, Department of Finance sought an opinion from the Office of Advocate General vide letter dated 17.10.2025. Thereafter, vide opinion dated 31.10.2025, the Office of Advocate General opined that a writ appeal be preferred. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.11.2025, the Office Incharge of the Case was appointed an the concerned OIC made all possible efforts to collect the requisite documents which were required for filing the instant appeal which took some time.

3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, however, some delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery because the State Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bonafide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 40 days from the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Nagaland Vs. LipokAo [(2005) 3 SCC Page 372], to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 40 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.

4. The question for determination before this Court is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e. the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for condonation of delay.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held as under:-

“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in t