1 2025:CGHC:54527-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 806 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Department Of Medical Education. Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Office Of Dean Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Joint Director Of Treasury Accounts And Pension District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Suresh Kumar Srivastava S/o Late Shri Shayam Lal Srivastava Aged About 63 Years Occupation Retired Government Servant, R/o House No. 65, Shriram Nagar, New Changorabhatha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 11:08:30 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants / State on I.A. No. 02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay for 427 days. Also heard Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1453/2021 (Suresh Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 721/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Ram Kumar Dewangan) vide order dated 08.10.2025, observing as follows : “7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Postmaster General (supra) and Ramkumar Choudhary (supra), it is evident that Government departments are under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence and 3 commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by Government entities. The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few. 8. Very recently on 12.09.2025, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1104 categorically held that the High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State- authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. 9. Upon considering the matter in its entirety and also applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, we find that the State has failed to provide any proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the present appeal. The only reason cited is that the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, had forwarded a proposal to the Office of the Advocate General for initiating an appeal against the impugned order dated 31.05.2024. Thereafter, the case was processed, and the present petition was ultimately filed. However, this sequence of events, lacking in specificity or justifiable cause, does not amount to a cogent or acceptable explanation. Thus, 4 the State has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient cause warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay of 427 days. 10. Consequently, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary power under the law to condone such extraordinary delay. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to establish any convincing or bona fide reason for the delay. Therefore, there is no justification for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing the writ appeal. 11. In view of the above, the writ appeal is hereby rejected on the ground of delay and laches. ” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 721/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 721/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 721/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in WA No. 721/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet