The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh reported in
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33173-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 477 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Veterinary Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Deputy Director, Office of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 2) 3 - Director Office of Director, Veterinary Services New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 3) versus ... Appellants
Legal Reasoning
Shatruhan Kumar Mahto S/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Mahto Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Barpali, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.(Petitioner) ... Respondent For Appellants/State For Respondent : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, 2 learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 299 days in preferring the appeal. 2. The State/appellants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2355 of 2017, by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent herein and directed the concerned authority to conduct the examination of all eligible candidates in accordance with Clause-13 of the original advertisement dated 30.10.2015. 3. On a pointed query being made to learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants as to why he has approached this Court against the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge after an inordinate delay of 299 days, he has not offered any plausible explanation for delay in filing the writ appeal. 4. As such, the writ appeal is barred by delay and laches and is not liable to be entertained. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 652 summarized the settled principles in the following manner:- “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the 3 said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion,etc.., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to As a recurring/successive wrongs will consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” apply. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, having found that the employee suddenly brought up a challenge to the order of termination of his services after 20 years and claimed all consequential benefits, held that the relief sought for was inadmissible. The legal position in this regard was laid out in the following terms:- “10. Every representation of the Government for relief, may not be applied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. incomplete Representations with particulars may be replied by seeking relevant 4 particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 11. When a decision is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits,being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgement of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action. 12. When a government abandons service to take alternative employment or to attend to personal affairs, and does not bother to send any letter seeking leave or letter of resignation or letter of voluntary retirement, and the records do not show that he is treated as being in service, he cannot after two decades, represent that he should be taken back to duty. Nor can such employee be treated as having continued in service, thereby deeming the entire period as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. That will be a travesty of justice. 13. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he should be taken back and approaches the court, the department naturally will not or may not have any record relating to the employee at that distance of time. In such cases, when the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry and the order of dismissal/removal, court cannot draw an adverse inference against the employer for not producing records, nor direct reinstatement with back wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation of service or the lucrative alternative employment of the employee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters will encourage discipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault and result in drain of public exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of a routine order for back wages.” 7. In the light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra) and considering the grounds raised in I.A. No.01 of 2025, application for condonation of delay in 5 filing the instant appeal, we do not find any good ground to condone the delay of 299 days in preferring the writ appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No.01 of 2025 is rejected. 8. So far as it relates to merit of the case is concerned. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it is apparent that authority had changed the rules and decided to conduct the written test for the writ petitioner alone, which is contrary to the recruitment process and the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kishore Pandit V. The State of Bihar and Others, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1566 of 2024 @ Special Leave to Appeal (Civil No. 3218 of 2018) decided on 02.02.2024, as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the corrigendum/order dated 16.11.2025 and communication dated 06.05.2017. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra