Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Over 207-Day Delay in ITI Instructors Case

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 106 | 2026:CGHC:2949-DB

January 19, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State government after finding no satisfactory explanation for a delay of 207 days in approaching the court.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal refused to condone the delay, leading to the outright dismissal of the appeal. The court held that the State failed to show any cogent or plausible reason justifying the prolonged lapse in filing the appeal against an earlier order passed by a Single Judge.

The appeal arose from a March 18, 2025 judgment in which a Single Judge had allowed writ petitions filed by more than 80 instructors working in government Industrial Training Institutes across Chhattisgarh. The instructors, including welders, electricians, fitters and COPA instructors, had challenged administrative actions affecting their service conditions.

When questioned by the Bench, counsel for the State was unable to offer a convincing explanation for the delay. The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that it was barred by delay and laches and that reopening the matter after such a long period would be legally untenable.

Relying on settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the High Court reiterated that belated service-related claims are ordinarily not entertained unless they involve a continuing wrong. The Bench cited landmark rulings including Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, which caution courts against reviving stale claims that disturb settled rights or burden the public exchequer.

The court observed that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of routine, particularly when the appellant fails to demonstrate sufficient cause. Since the application seeking condonation of delay was rejected, the writ appeal automatically stood dismissed. With this decision, the March 2025 ruling in favour of the ITI instructors remains undisturbed.

Case Reference : WA No. 24 of 2026, State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Sant Ram Gaikwad and Others; Counsels: for the Appellants, Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General; for Respondent No. 1, Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate; and for Respondent No. 2, Ms. Manubha Shankar, holding brief for Mr. Harshwardhan Parghania, Advocate.