1 CGHC010192482026 2026:CGHC:30134-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 601 of 2026 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Deparment Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur(C.G.) 2 - Secretary , Department Of Panchayat , State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District -Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District -Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh District -Baloda Baza-R Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer, Block Bilaigarh District -Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Raviprabha Sahu S/o Ram Singh Sahu Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Primary School Janvani, Block Bilaigarh, District -Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.17 13:28:01 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for appellant/State on I.A. No.02 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay as well as Mr. Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10335/2019 (Raviprabha Sahu 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/State as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in an identical matter, this Bench had allowed WA No. 489/2026 (Chief Executive Officer vs. Raviprabha Sahu & Others) vide order dated 19.06.2026. They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 489/2026, this appeal may also be allowed in the same terms. 4. However, a perusal of the record reveals that while WA No. 489 of 2026 was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the present appeal has been preferred with a delay of 196 days. 3 Further, a perusal of I.A. No. 02 of 2026, filed seeking condonation of delay, shows that no sufficient or plausible explanation has been furnished to justify condonation of the inordinate delay. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant/State has failed to disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 196 days in preferring the present appeal. In the absence of any plausible explanation for such inordinate delay, I.A. No. 02 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay deserves to be, and is hereby, rejected. 6. Consequently, since the delay is not condoned, the writ appeal, being barred by limitation, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet