Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires demonstrating 'sufficient cause' that actively prevented timely filing; financial hardship or ignorance of law does not justify inordinate delay, and courts must not condone such delay where negligence or lack of bona fides is evident.

NAFR

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Animesh Miri and Mr. Mohanlal Kaushik, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for respondents/State on I.A. No. 01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal under Section 5 of the limitation act. The present writ appeal is delayed by 213 days from the date of order passed in WPS No. 6056/2021.

2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against an order dated 09.06.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 6056 of 2021 (Bhagwani Ram Bhatpahri Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), by which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. The writ appeal has also been filed against the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 414/2025 whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. From perusal of I.A. No. 01/2026, the petitioner has assigned the reasons for delay that in compliance of the order dated 09.06.2025, the petitioner reinstated and joined on duty on 31.07.2025, however, he has not received any salary since his reinstatement and facing financial hardship and poverty, therefore, he could not move for filing of the writ appeal within time.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since no back wages was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 09.06.2025, he moved a review petition which has also been dismissed. The writ appellant was not at any fault but it is the authorities concerned who were at fault and the writ appellant is entitled for back wages also. Even after his reinstatement, salary to him has not been provided and thereby, he could not be able to file his writ appeal within time. Due to the wrong committed by the authorities, the petitioner was kept out of his duty for a considerable period for which he in entitled by back wages. Therefore, there is sufficient explanation for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal and the writ appellant has merits in the appeal for grant of back wages.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellant and submits that the writ appellant has not sufficiently explained the reasons for delay in filing the writ appeal. He has not avert in the writ petition that he was not gain fully employed at any where during his period of termination and the learned Single Judge has also considered in Para 12 of its order that the writ petitioner is not entitled for any back wages. The petitioner joined his service pursuant to the order dated 09.06.2025 and thereafter, only to brought to appeal within time he moved his application for review at belated stage which has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no merits in the case as well as the application for condonation of delay in preferring the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant writ appeal as well as the record of the writ appeal and writ petition.

7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “ State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary ” 2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:-

“5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond li