1 CGHC010407362019 2026:CGHC:35905 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9870 of 2019 Dinesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Sukhlal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Mohala Thana Mohala Jila Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Sachiw Panchayat , Gramin Vikas Aowm Shram Vibag , Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanchalyak Panchayat Sanchanaly Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mukhya Karypalan Aadikari Jila Panchayat Rajnandgaon Jila Raj- nandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mukhya Karyapalan Aadikari Janpad Panchayat Aambagadh Jila Raj- nandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Rajnandgaon , Jila Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Jila Sikcha Aadikari Rajnandgaon Jila Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Vikas Khand Sikcha Aadikari Aambagadh Chowki , Jila Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 8 - Pradhan Pathak Aadiwasi Chatrawas Butaksha Vikaskhand Aambagadh Chowki Jila Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 9 - Pradhan Pathak Prathamik Shalla Netamtola Vikaskhand Aamagadh Chowki Jila Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 18.09.2015, whereby the petitioner was removed from service; Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.14 17:53:31 +0530 2 the appellate order dated 28.01.2016 affirming the said order; and the revisional order dated 20.08.2019, whereby the revision petition pre- ferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation with- out examining the matter on merits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ap- pointed as an Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on compassionate grounds on 01.07.2008, following the death of his father while in ser- vice. It is further submitted that, due to ill-health, the petitioner re- mained absent from duty and, without issuing any charge-sheet or af- fording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, his services were ter- minated by order dated 18.09.2015. The appeal preferred by the peti- tioner was dismissed on 28.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner pre- ferred 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 ut- most circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would reveal that the application for con- donation of delay filed by the petitioner was duly supported by an affi- 3 davit 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 condo- nation 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. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti