2026:CGHC:11784-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by BABLU B R A A B JE L N U DRA R BH AJ A E N N A D R R K A AR BHANARKARDate:

2 1 0 0 2 :0 6 9 .0 :4 3 8 .13 WA No. 215 of 2026 +0530

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Commissioner Higher Education, Govt. Of Chhattisgrh, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Principal C.M.D. Post Graduate College, Bilaspur, Distt.

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

...Appellants versus Udit Narayan Pandey (U.N. Pandey) S/o Late Shri Ramkishore Pandey Aged About 75 Years R/o K-37, Kranti Nagar (West), Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Advocate 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

12.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants/State on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 428 days in preferring the writ appeal. Also heard Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate , appearing for the State/appellants, submits that the impugned order has been passed by learned Single Judge on 25.09.2024. Thereafter, the department initiated proceeding to file writ appeal against the impugned order before the Division Bench of this Court. Office of the Advocate General has given opinion to prefer writ appeal before Division Bench of this Court on 07.11.2025. Thereafter, on 15.12.2025 the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh has granted permission for filing aforesaid writ appeal.

3. He further submits that the Under Secretary, Law & Legislature Department, Government of Chhattisgarh directed to file writ appeal against the impugned order before the Division Bench of this Court and Assistant Professor (Law), Legal cell was appointed as Officer-in-Charge of the case and the relevant documents have been received by the concerned Officer-in- Charge on 16.12.2025 and then the process for filing aforesaid writ appeal was initiated by the Officer-in-Charge and writ appeal has been prepared and filed before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. He also submits that the aforesaid delay has been caused due to departmental procedure, which is bonafide and not intentional and therefore, the same is liable to be condoned.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Upadhyay, 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, against which the State has preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2025 on the ground of delay.

5. 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.

6. 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 Governmen