##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:10206-DB

D byig Ait La Olly K signed NAFR

ALOK SHARMA

SHARMAD 20a 2te 6:

.02.27

18:00:21

+0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WA No. 160 of 2026

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher

Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,

District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Commissioner Higher Education, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh,

Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Manju Agrawal W/o Late Shri Anup Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 72

Years R/o 34/9, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2 - Chandra Prabha Handa W/o Ramesh Kumar Handa, Aged About 72

Years R/o 472, Scindia Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

3 - Sharda Bhatia, W/o Late Shri T.L. Bhatia, Aged About 73 Years R/o

Parmanand Nagar, Behind Piccadali Hotel, Mahoba Bazaar, Tatibandh,

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Sushma Mene W/o Shrri Diwakar Mene, Aged About 69 Years R/o

Lily 208, Block-A, Talpuri International Colony, Ruabandha, Bhilai

Nagar, District Durg (C.G.)

5 - Vipin Chopra W/o Pawan Kumar Chopra, Aged About 65 Years R/o

Plot No. 5, Block-49, Nehru Nagar (West) Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

6 - Anita Narula W/o R.K. Narula, Aged About 65 Years R/o Lotus 57,

Block-A, Talpuri, International Colony, Ruabandha Bhilai, District Durg

(C.G.)

2

7 - Sudha Agrawal W/o Shri Prem Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 69 Years

R/o 102, Akash Vandan Apartment, 117, Janki Nagar, Extension Indore

(M.P.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate

General.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

27/02/2026

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General for

the appellants/ State and Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel

for respective respondents on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an

application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/

appellants submits that the petition filed by the writ petitioners

bearing WPS No. 5391/2024 has been decided alongwith other

connected matters. Against which the Law & Legislative Affairs

Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya

Raipur sent a proposal to the office of the Advocate General to

file an appeal against the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by this

Court in WPS No. 5391/2024 and other connected matters.

Thereafter, the case was placed before the Advocate General

and then the case was marked for drafting and as per the above

3

proposal, the office has initiated proceeding and certified copy of

the impugned order and other relevant exhibited documents

have been received from the concerned Department and

thereafter, the instant appeal was prepared and filed before this

Court.

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 formalities

and working of the Government machinery, 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 464 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

Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to

buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel

prays that the delay of 464 days in preferring the appeal may be

condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued

and pointed out that challenging the order of learned Single

Judge in the other similar matters, a batch of writ appeals was

filed and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

4

25/08/2023 against which the State has preferred an SLP before

the