Justice P Anil Kumar extended the stay after Venugopal's counsel Maninder Singh sought time to file a rejoinder on the Centre's reply.
The Centre on July 25 had moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the order of a single-judge bench which stayed the Institute's Governing Council's decision to terminate Venugopal's services.
Listing 45 grounds to justify the termination move, the Centre had accused Venugopal among other things of actively patronising the anti-reservation agitation by the resident doctors in the Institute's premises in May 2006.
However, the government later withdrew its appeal filed against the order of a single judge who had on July 7, stayed the AIIMS governing body's decision to terminate Venugopal's services.
Earlier in August, the Centre was directed by the Delhi High Court to file a reply on a public interest litigation challenging Venugopal's appointment as Director.
A Division Bench headed by Justice M K Sharma also granted two weeks time to Venugopal to file his reply on the PIL filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation which his counsel Arun Jaitley alleged was "motivated and inspired" by the government.
