1 2026:CGHC:21421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3878 of 2026 Kishore Kumar Bhagat S/o Late Ganesh Ram Bhagat Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Marga Dumartoli, Tehsil- Manora, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 07/05/2026 Heard. 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Additional Collector, Jashpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioner has also sought quashment of the termination order dated JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.05.08 17:50:41 +0530 2 26.08.2017 along with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis to the post of Peon by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District Jashpur, in lieu of death of his father. It is submitted that all of a sudden, vide order dated 26.08.2017, the services of the petitioner were terminated without conducting any departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 8989/2022, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.12.2022 with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam read with Rule 3 of the C.G. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. However, the same has been rejected on the ground of delay that too without appreciating the explanation offered by the petitioner. Thus this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner and would submit that the Additional Collector has rightly passed the order impugned. However, when a specific querry was raised by this court with regard to the availability of alternative remedy against the order impugned she failed to make any submission in this regard. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleading as also the documents appended thereto. 5. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Collector on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish any satisfactory and sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority observed that the petitioner had knowledge of the legal remedy, as he had earlier approached the High Court 3 in WPS No. 8989/2022, which was disposed of on 15.12.2022. Despite having such knowledge, the petitioner filed the appeal only on 30.04.2024, i.e., after about 1 year and 4 months from the said order and nearly 6 years and 8 months after the termination order dated 26.08.2017. Therefore, the delay was held to be unjustified and the application for condonation of delay was rejected and consequently the appeal was dimsissed. 6. Though from perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that the petitioner has been terminated from the service on account of his unauthorised absence from duties for a long a period of about 3 years 4 months, but before passing such order no enquiry was conducted as enumerated under the extant service rules. The Additional Collector ought not to have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner solely on the ground of delay and laches rather, the appeal should have been considered on its merits and decided in accordance with law, as the present dispute relates to termination of service of the petitioner. 7. It is settled law that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. {See: Collector, Land Acquisition Anatnag and Ors. v Mst. Katiji and Others reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107}. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court of the learned Additional Collector, Jashpur, with a direction to consider and decide the petitioner’s appeal, without insisting upon the issue of delay, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. 9. It is clarified that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the Additional Collector strictly on the basis of the material available on record. 4 The Additional Collector shall not be influenced, in any manner whatsoever, by any observation made by this Court in the present order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti