Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24776
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 9870 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abdul Moin Khan, Abdul Wahab Khan
For the Respondents: H.A.P.S. Bhatia
A revisional authority cannot dismiss a petition solely on the ground of limitation if an application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit and medical evidence, has been filed and not controverted by the opposing party.
Headnote:(A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Rejection of revision petition solely on the ground of limitation without considering the application for condonation of delay supported by medical certificates and affidavits is unsustainable and contrary to the principles of natural justice. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in dismissing the revision petition solely on the ground of limitation without considering the application for condonation of delay supported by medical evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to service termination and the subsequent dismissal of a revision petition on the grounds of limitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. requirement for authorities to consider condonation of delay applications supported by evidence before dismissing a case on limitation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA
2026.08.14 17:53:31 +0530
Order on Board
1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 18.09.2015, whereby the petitioner was removed from service; the appellate order dated 28.01.2016 affirming the said order; and the revisional order dated 20.08.2019, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation without examining the matter on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on compassionate grounds on 01.07.2008, following the death of his father while in service. It is further submitted that, due to ill-health, the petitioner remained absent from duty and, without issuing any charge-sheet or affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, his services were terminated by order dated 18.09.2015. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 28.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition on 13.08.2019 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, supported by a medical certificate. However, the revision was dismissed on 20.08.2019 solely on the ground of limitation without considering the application for condonation of delay or examining the matter on merits. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the principles of natural justice and deserve to be set aside.
3. Learned State counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that the same have been passed in accordance with law and do not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection.
5. A careful perusal of the record would reveal that the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner was duly supported by an affidavit as well as relevant documents, including a medical certificate. There was no material brought on record by the other side to controvert the explanation furnished by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the revisional authority ought to have considered the application for condonation of delay in its proper perspective and, at the least, verified the explanation furnished by the petitioner before rejecting the revision solely on the ground of limitation. The impugned order dated 20.08.2019, therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned, and the revision of the petitioner is restored before the Commissioner, Durg, for disposal on merits in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
