HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Present: Shri GS. Agrawai, Senior Advocate with Shri U. R. Koshale, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14m August, 2007) The petitioner has chaiienged the order dated 06.01.2004 passed in Appeal No. 36iP.G.A,/O3, by the appeiiate authority, Raipur: under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act’ 1972’), whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of one day delay only It has been indicated that the limitation was wrongly calculated by the learned counsel and in support learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Bhupendra ' Sharma has filed his afndavit before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal can be filed under Section 7(7) of the Act, 19??! within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order to the appropriate Government or such authoritytas may be specified by the appropriate Government on its behalf. it has been further provided that the authority concerned can extend the said period for filing an appeal fti‘another 6O days, if sufficient cause has been found by the authority concerned, In the present case, the one day delay has been denied. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground of one day delay and the authority concerned has not even recorded any cause for not condoning theadelay. Provisions of law clearly i SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. Cd WP. No. 713 of 2004 PETITIQNER M/s Desai Oil Milk, through : Proprietor Rasikla! son of Jattu Bhai, resident of Ganjpara, Raipur (CG) VERSUS RESPGNDENT Smt Veeram Bai, aged about 60 years widow of Late Radheial, resident of Bharatnagar, Near Gan} Post Oiiioe, Raipur, Distt, and Tah, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) indicate that time for ming the appea! could be extended by one day. This Court finds that the order passed by the Couns ‘beiow is neither in accordance with law nor any reasonable explanation has been given for refusing the condonation of one day’s delay in filing appeal. l am of the opinion that always due weightage is given to the exceptional circumstances wherein the learned counsel files his affidavit and this Court cannot brush aside the affidavit filed by the learned counsei who calculated the limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06-01-2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the case on merit expeditiously. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. awe r “it Sd/~ iActing Chief Justice