##PAGE1##

1

MANPREET 2026:CGHC:10164-DB

KAUR

Digitally signed by

MANPREET KAUR NAFR

Date: 2026.03.02

10:57:50 +0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WA No. 194 of 2026

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya

Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh,

Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

3 - The District Education Officer District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Sangeeta Mishra W/o Shri Satyendra Kishore Mishra Aged

About 49 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher And Posted At

Government Middle School, Attharahgudi, Block Pithora, District

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

2 - Rameshwar Hota S/o Shri Shivshankar Hota Aged About 45 Years

Occupation Service, Working As Lecturer And Posted At Government

R.K. Higher Secondary School Pithora, Block Pithora, District

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh R/o Rajasewaiya Khurd, P.O. Pithora, P.S.

Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

2

For Appellant(s) / : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate

State. General.

For Respondent(s) : Mr Dhani Ram Patel, 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. Shashank Thakur, learned Add. A.G. for the

appellants/State on I.A. No.02 of 2026, which is an application

for condonation of delay. Also heard Mr. Dhani Ram Patel,

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

State/appellants submits that the learned Single Judge on

19.12.2024 passed the impugned order. The appellant/State

authorities had sought opinion from the office of the Advocate

General vide letter dated 04.03.2025 upon which the office of the

Advocate General vide its letter dated 14.08.2025 / 23.08.2025

accorded opinion for filing appeal and thereafter, proposal was

sent to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department through the

Department of School Education for sanction in the month of

November and accordingly the sanction for filing the appeal was

accorded on 25.11.2025 and thereafter, the Officer-in-Charge

was appointed vide order dated 26.11.2025 by the School

3

Education Department and the present appeal was filed

thereafter before this Hon’ble Court on 28.01.2026.

3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary

documents and information with respect to the case, some delay

was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental

formalities and working of the Government machinery because

the State Government is a multi functioning body, 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 357 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 Nagaland Vs. LipokAo [(2005) 3 SCC Page

372], to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State

counsel prays that the delay of 357 days in preferring the petition

may be condoned.

4. 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.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster

General and others v. Living Media India Limited and

4

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 t