Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3696 of 2020 L.K. Namdeo S/o Shri Mangal Prasad Namdeo Aged About 59 Years R/o Near Atal Awas Shiv Mandir , Presently Posted As Work Assistant, PWD Division , Kawardha Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief PWD Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - S.M. Khan Sub Engineer, PWD Office Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07.7.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- 10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the Respondent authorities with respect to present case of the petitioner. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.07.10 10:12:40 +0530 2 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of promotion from the date when his juniors have been promoted; and 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as ‘Work Assistant’ in the respondent department with effect from 06.6.1980 and his name was found place at Sl. No.99 in the seniority list of 22.4.1987. In the year 1987, juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of ‘Sub-Engineer’ vide Order dated 19.8.1987, but the petitioner was not granted promotion. On 04.7.1990, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, which was concluded vide Order dated 08.01.2002 (Annexure- P/5), whereby, the petitioner was inflicted with penalty of reduction of salary to the effect that as per the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/-, minimum salary of Rs.4,000/- per month was directed to be paid to the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was decided vide Order dated 11.6.2007 (Annexure-P/6) and the punishment imposed against the petitioner was modified and two increments were directed to be withheld with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner suffered paralytic attack in the year 2010. He made repeated representations from 2011 to 2019, but no heed has been paid on his representations. Therefore, the petitioner filed WPS
Decision
No.6588/2019, which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner at the earliest. Thereafter, vide impugned Order dated 23.12.2019, representation filed by the petitioner 3 was rejected by the respondent authorities, hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1987, respondent No.3 SM Khan, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted to the post of Sub-Engineer, but the petitioner was not granted promotion. He further submits that though in the year 1990, departmental enquiry was initiated against him, he was penalised, but in the appeal, his punishment was reduced vide Order dated 11.6.2007, but since the petitioner suffered paralytic attack in the year 2010, hence, he could not approach the Court, rather he filed various representations, but the same were not decided by the respondent authorities. He further submits that as of now, the petitioner has been retired after attaining the age of superannuation. But depriving him from promotion by the respondent authorities is completely perverse and illegal, hence, he prayed that relief sought for by the petitioner may be granted to him. 4. The State has filed its reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that earlier vide Order dated 04.7.1990, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. Subsequently it was revoked as vide Order dated 16.9.2016, he has been acquitted in Criminal Case No.301/89, which was registered against him under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 34 of IPC. He further submits that in pursuance of Order dated 02.9.2019 passed by this Court in WPS No.6588/2019, the petitioner had filed representation, which has been decided vide impugned Order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure-P/1) and his representation has been rejected as Chhattisgarh Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2016, has been framed by the State Government, wherein post of Work Assistant (Civil) is not sanctioned and further there is no channel for promotion from the post of Work Assistant 4 (Civil) to the Sub-Engineer (Civil) and further the enquiry as contemplated against the petitioner was pending. He further submits that as per present rules governing promotion, there is no channel for promotion from Work Assistant (Civil) to Sub-Engineer (Civil), therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for by him, as such, the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Work Assistant in the year 1980 and respondent No.3-SM Khan, who was his junior, was promoted to the post of Sub-Engineer in the year 1987. Till 2019, the petitioner did not approach this Court by filing writ petition seeking his promotion. For the first time he filed WPS No.6588/2019 for said relief. If there would have been any impediment in the promotion of the petitioner like departmental enquiry, etc. despite that, if applicable law/rules prevalent at that time entitles the petitioner to get promotion then, he ought to have approached this Court at that time, but, for the first time he approached this Court after about 32 years. Given the said facts, present petition suffers from huge delay of almost 32 years. 7. The law with regard to delay and latches is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In a similarly situated case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of PS Sadasivaswamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 held that “A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise 5 exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petition is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering the legitimate grievances as also its normal work.” 8. Further in the case of Union of India v. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 SCC 758, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the effect of delay in challenging the seniority or promotion and held thus:- “8. Manifestly, the cause of action first arose to the respondents on the date of initial suppression and again on the date when rejection of their representation was communicated to them, or within reasonable time thereafter. Even if the plea based on Dev Dutt v. Union of India reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 be considered, the cause of action based thereon accrued on 12.5.2008. There has to be a difference between a cause of action and what is perceived as materials in support of the cause of action. In service matters, especially with regard to promotion, there is always an urgency. The aggrieved must approach the Court at the earliest opportunity, or within a reasonable time thereafter as third-party rights accrue in the meantime to those who are subsequently promoted. Such persons continue to work on the promotional post, ensconced in their belief of the protection available to them in service with regard to seniority. Any belated interference with the same is bound to 6 have adverse effect on those already promoted affecting their morale in service also. Additionally, any direction at a belated stage to consider others for promotion with retrospective effect, after considerable time is bound to have serious administrative implications apart from the financial burden on the government that would follow by such others of promotion.” 9. In the instant case, as has been observed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner is seeking promotion from the date when his junior (respondent No.3-SM Khan) has been promoted, i.e. from 1987. But to get such relief, he approached this Court for the first time in 2019. Though there was a departmental enquiry against him, despite that, if he was entitled to get promotion, then he ought to have approach this Court much prior to 2019, i.e. immediately after 1987 when he was deprived from promotion. However, no steps in this regard were taken by him and after more than 32 years, he approached this Court seeking his promotion from 1987. As such, it was found that instant petition as well as earlier petition have been filed by the petitioner after inordinate delay in the arising of the cause of action, which cannot be ignored lightly. 10. In view of the above discussions and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters in respecty of delay, I do not feel inclined to entertain this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini 7