Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.02.26 1

16:52:39 +0530

2026:CGHC:9924-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 156 of 2026

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus

1 - Chandrakant Pandey S/o Shri Kamal Prasad Pandey Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I In The Department of Culture, Nava Raipur, R/o Sector 29 Bunglow No. 32, MIG Room No.

101, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Mirza Muskan Baig Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I, In The Animal Husbandry Department Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I, In The General Administration Department (Accounts), Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Lalit Kumar Paul Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I In The Department of Public Health Engineering, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General For REspondents : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

26.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 210 days in preferring the present writ appeal.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that the delay of 210 days in filing the present writ appeal is neither deliberate nor attributable to any inaction on the part of the appellants, but has occurred on account of procedural formalities inherent in governmental functioning. It is submitted that immediately after passing of the order dated 09.05.2025 in W.P.(S) No. 8453/2022, the matter required administrative examination at various levels, and thereafter, owing to the filing of Contempt Case (C) No. 1208/2025, the Department was bonafidely pursuing compliance proceedings before taking a conscious decision regarding assailing the order under appeal. It is further submitted that upon seeking opinion from the Office of the learned Advocate General, and after receipt of the considered legal opinion on 05.01.2026 recommending filing of a writ appeal, the competent authority promptly processed the matter and accorded requisite sanction on 07.01.2026. Thereafter, the Officer In- Charge was immediately appointed and necessary steps were undertaken for collection of records and drafting of the appeal. Thus, there has been no intentional lapse or negligence, and the delay is sufficiently explained by a day-to-day account of events.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the State represents a large administrative machinery where decision-making involves procedural approvals and inter-departmental correspondence, which inevitably consume some time. It is contended that a liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering an application for condonation of delay filed by the State, particularly when substantial questions of law are involved in the appeal. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may graciously be pleased to condone the delay of 210 days in filing the present writ appeal in the interest of substantial justice.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners opposes the application for condonation of delay and submits that the delay of 210 days is inordinate and remains wholly unexplained inasmuch as the appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause preventing them from filing the appeal within