The Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sita Bai
2026 Latest Caselaw 658 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

The Executive Engineer vs Smt. Sita Bai on 17 March, 2026

                                                            1




                                                                             2026:CGHC:12587


                                                                                               NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                  MAC No. 727 of 2026

                     The Executive Engineer CSPDCL, Kurud, Dhamtari, Dhamtari, Dist,

                     C.G. State

                                                                                       ... Appellant

                                                         versus
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
       2026.03.18
         10:32:41
         +0530




                     1 - Smt. Sita Bai W/o Bhuvan Aged About 51 Years R/o Goshala

                     Chowk, Village And Post, Avari, Tah. Kurud, Dist. Dhamtari, C.G.

                     State



                     2 - Bhuvan Sukalu Aged About 47 Years R/o Goshala Chowk, Village

                     And     Post,    Avari,    Tah.   Kurud,     Dist.    Dhamtari,    C.G.     State



                     3 - M/s Maa Annapurna Rice Mill Purrena, Prop. Dilip Kumar Sinha

                     S/o Sri Ram Sinha, R/o Sihawa Road, In Front Of Vinayak Industries,

                     Ps      And     Tahsil     Dhamtari,       Dist.     Dhamtari,     C.G.     State



                     4 - The Divisional Manager New India Insurance Co. Ltd, Paphadi

                     Chowk, Raipur, C.G State

                                                                                ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Appellant : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board 17/03/2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, an application filed under Section

30 of the Employees' Compensation Act for condonation of

delay in filing the present appeal. By the said application, the

appellant seeks condonation of delay of 122 days in preferring

the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

is aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in

Application No. 68/2025, whereby the modification sought for

was rejected, read with order dated 25.08.2025 passed in

Application No. 49/2025 by the learned Labour Court,

Dhamtari. It is submitted that while preferring the present

appeal challenging the aforesaid orders, a delay of 122 days

has occurred due to time consumed in collecting necessary

and relevant documents and also due to lack of proper

knowledge regarding the prescribed limitation period. It is

further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor

deliberate, but bona fide and on account of sufficient cause.

3. It is further contended that the appellant has a good case on

merits and, if the delay is not condoned, the appellant shall

suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, it is prayed that,

in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the delay in filing

the appeal be condoned.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant and perused the application for condonation

of delay along with the material available on record.

5. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the appellant

has sought condonation of delay of 122 days on the grounds

of delay in collecting documents and lack of knowledge of the

limitation period. This Court is of the considered opinion that

the reasons assigned by the appellant are vague and general

in nature and do not constitute "sufficient cause" within the

meaning of law. No cogent or satisfactory explanation, much

less a day-to-day explanation, has been furnished to justify

the inordinate delay. It is well settled that the law of limitation

is to be applied with all its rigour and cannot be relaxed in a

routine manner.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster

General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another,

(2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held

as under:-

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well

aware or conversant with the issues involved including the

prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by

way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot

claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the

Department was possessed with competent persons familiar

with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and

acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the

delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the

Government or a wing of the Government is a party

before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of

condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or

deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession

has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of

the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department

cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The

claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited

bureaucratic methodology of making several notes

cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies

being used and available. The law of limitation

undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the

government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that

unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for

the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to

accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending

for several months/years due to considerable degree of

procedural red-tape in the process. The government

departments are under a special obligation to ensure that

they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used

as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The

law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be

swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation

offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of

various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably

failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to

condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are

liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."

7. Recently, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary,

2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some

directions and observed as follows:-

"5. The legal position is that where a case has been

presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner

has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient

cause" which means an adequate and enough reason

which prevented him to approach the Court within

limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC

Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though

limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to

be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A

reference was also made to the decision of this Court in

Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it

was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an

application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient

cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:

"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect

that where a case has been presented in the court beyond

limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to

what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate

and enough reason which prevented him to approach the

court within limitation. In case a party is found to be

negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts

and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted

diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified

ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified

in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any

condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only

within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to

the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient

cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time

condoning the delay without any justification, putting any

condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in

violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to

showing utter disregard to the legislature."

14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the

High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the

delay condonation application of the present appellant."

Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the

delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and

circumstances of each case and that, the expression

'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if

negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to

the party.

5.1. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)

through his legal heir, 2024 INSC 262, wherein, one of us

(J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a member, after referring to various

decisions on the issue, it was in unequivocal terms

observed by this Court that delay should not be excused as

a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice is

not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The relevant

passage of the same is profitably extracted below:

"24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear

that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter

as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has

been made out for condonation of such a long and

inordinate delay.

25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party

or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning

the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant

chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the

time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law,

then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice

would be caused to either side by the delay being

condoned. This litigation between the parties started

sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have

elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been

able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery

of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days

and once again ask the respondent to undergo the

rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the

court must take into consideration while considering

whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the

tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that

they want to fix their own period of limitation for

instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a

period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost

his right to have the matter considered on merits because

of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be

non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the

case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial

justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical

considerations. While considering the plea for

condonation of delay, the court must not start with the

merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first

ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the

party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause

assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other

side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid

the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the

delay.

27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not

merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation

are based on the principles of sound public policy and

principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of

Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for

indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims

and fancies of the appellants.

xxx xxx xxx

34. In view of the aforesaid, we have reached to the

conclusion that the High Court committed no error much

less any error of law in passing the impugned order. Even

otherwise, the High Court was exercising its supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been

said that delay should not be excused as a matter of

generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause

prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed

to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting

the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is

not satisfied in this case.

36. For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is

hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

Applying the above legal proposition to the facts of the

present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court

correctly refused to condone the delay and dismissed the

appeal by observing that such inordinate delay was not

explained satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for

the same, and no plausible reason was put forth by the

State. Therefore, we are inclined to reject this petition at

the threshold.

6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the

delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to

callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the

officials functioning in the State machinery. Though

the Government adopts systematic approach in

handling the legal issues and preferring the

petitions/applications/appeals well within the time,

due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely

communicating the information on time, huge revenue

loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The

present case is one such case, wherein, enormous

delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second

appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials

functioning under the State, though valuable

Government lands were involved. Therefore, we direct

the State to streamline the machinery touching the

legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases

before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility

on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s),

who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses,

etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the

Government. Such direction will have to be followed by

all the States scrupulously.

7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we

must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we

have noticed that whenever there is a plea for

condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private

litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right

from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay

of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the

same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days

then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it

was unable to institute the proceedings within that period

of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till

the last is of no consequence. The court is required to

consider what came in the way of the party that it was

unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is

true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of

limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the

limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not

filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish

that because of some event or circumstance arising before

the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal

within time. No event or circumstance arising after the

expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause.

There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the

expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of

the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to

expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a

cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit

Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR

1981 SC 733)."

8. 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 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.

9. 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.

10. In the present case, the appellant, being a public authority

(Executive Engineer, CSPDCL), was expected to act with due

promptitude, diligence, and bona fides in prosecuting the

matter. However, the appellant has failed to demonstrate the

same. The conduct reflects a lack of seriousness and proper

attention in pursuing the case. The grounds taken in the

appeal appear to be casual, vague, and insufficient, and they

do not inspire the confidence of this Court.

11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2026 seeking condonation of delay is

hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by

limitation, also stands dismissed.

12. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

Judge Shoaib