MURLI MANOHAR SAHU vs STATE GOVT. OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WA/288/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010098662026

Filing Number

WA/5619/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

WA/288/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. ( 613 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MURLI MANOHAR SAHU

    Adv. TIKESHWAR PRASAD KAUSHIK,ANUPAM UPADHYAY,ANUPAM UPADHYAY, ,ANUPAM UPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE GOVT. OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.MANAGING DIRECTOR

    Adv. MAYANK CHANDRAKAR

  3. 3.CHHATTISGARH, STATE POWER TRANSMISSON COMPANY LIMITED

  4. 4.ENGINEER IN CHIEF, (HUMAN RESOURCES)

  5. 5.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

  6. 6.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

  7. 7.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appellant's writ appeal and rejected his application seeking condonation of a 178-day delay in filing. The court found no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, making the appeal barred by limitation and laches. The court applied Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that delayed service-related claims, particularly those affecting third parties' settled rights, will not be entertained without compelling justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    For Orders [On Office Notes]

    Additional Registrar(j)

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/288/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appellant's writ appeal and rejected his application seeking condonation of a 178-day delay in filing. The court found no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, making the appeal barred by limitation and laches. The court applied Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that delayed service-related claims, particularly those affecting third parties' settled rights, will not be entertained without compelling justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case