V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.12 18:07:44 +0530

2025:CGHC:60469-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 862 of 2025

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1)

2 - Director Directorate Social Welfare, Mana Camp, Vip Road, Raipur, District -

Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2)

3 - Superintendent Government Sheltered Workshop, Tifra, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) ... Appellant(s)

versus Dharmendra Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Shri Vishwanath Nirmalkar Aged About 39 Years C/o Government Sheltered Workshop, Tifra, Bilaspur, Police Station - Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants/State : Shri Praveen Das, Additional AG For Respondent : None appears ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

12.12.2025 Heard Shri Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants on IA-2 of 2025, application for condonation of delay.

1. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge on 29.04.2025 passed the impugned order, allowing WPS-2947 of 2025 (Dharmendra Kumar Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh, and 02 others), and directed the respondents to inspect the records of other similarly situated employees at the time of their regularization. Under the law, 45 days time is allowed to file an appeal before the Division Bench against the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. After receiving the order dated 29.04.2025, the State Government, Social Welfare Department had sought opinion from the Office of the Advocate General vide its letter dated 16.06.2025, on which the Office of the Advocate General obtained sanction from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department on 11.09.2025. Thereafter, Officer-in-charge has been appointed, who approached the Office of Advocate General for filing the instant Writ Appeal, and the present appeal is being drafted, and filed before this Hon’ble Court.

2. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, yet, some delay was occurred due to various departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery, because the State Government is a multi functioning body, and at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Hence, in some cases, the State is prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bona fide , and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after delay of 126 days from the prescribed period of limitation.

3. Learned State counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs Chandra Mani and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of

126 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.

4. The question for determination before this Court is whether the State has sufficiently explained the reasons of delay by giving satisfactory explanation ?

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, reported in (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 i