NAFR 1 - Bhagwat Prasad Khande S/o Shri Shivdas Khande Aged About 51 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Pirncipal Secretary, Department Tribal And Scheduled Caste
Case Details
1 SMT NIRMALA RAO 2025:CGHC:41000 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6430 of 2021 NAFR 1 - Bhagwat Prasad Khande S/o Shri Shivdas Khande Aged About 51 Years Working As Investigator, Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Pirncipal Secretary, Department Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Chhattisgarh District Atal Nagar, Raipur Raipur 3 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur
Legal Reasoning
‘17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remain unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons -who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold. 9. In the matter of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 48, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 6 “6. Incidentally this point of delay and laches was also raised before the High Court and on this score the High Court relying upon the decision in Abhyankar case (N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India [(1995) 1 Mah LJ 503] ) observed that it is not an inflexible rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must and necessarily refuse to entertain the petition filed after a period of three years or more which is the normal period of limitation for filing a suit. The Bombay High Court in Abhyankar case [(1995) 1 Mah LJ 503] stated that the question is one of discretion to be followed in the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the writ court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. 11. In the present case, the petitioner remained silent for a long period after withdrawing his earlier writ petition in 2016, and the present petition was filed only in 2020. Such inaction and delay cannot be condoned, particularly when promotions of other employees have already taken effect long back. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his representations and earlier writ petition would save him from the bar of delay and laches cannot be accepted. The claim of the petitioner for promotion and consequential seniority from 2011, as prayed under clauses 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 of the petition, are accordingly rejected. 12. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for the grant of the third time- bound pay scale with effect from 07.03.2020 on completion of 30 years of service, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit a fresh representation before the Competent Authority. In case such a 7 representation is made, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law.
Arguments
4 - Shri Santosh Kumar Kanwar Assistant Statistics Officer Office Of Pariyojna Prashashak, Ekikrit Adiwasi Vikas Pariyojna, Baikunthpur, District Chhattisgarh Koriya 5 - Shri Jaswant Tigga Assistant Statistics Officer, Office Of Pariyojna Prashashak, Ekikrit Adiwasi Vikas Pariyojna, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Tep Singh Kanwar Assistant Statistics Officer, Office Of Pariyojna Prashashak, Ekikrit Adiwasi Vikas Pariyojna, Gariyaband, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For Respondent/State For Respondent No.5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V.A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate. : : : 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “1] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent no. 2 and the representation of the petitioner dated 26.06.2021 (part of Annex. P-9) may kindly be directed to be considered and decided within any reasonable period of time, in the interest of justice; or 2] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities and they may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer, w.e.f 01.12.2011 and all the subsequent benefits, in the interest of justice. 3] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities and they may kindly be directed to grant appropriate seniority to the petitioner, after his promotion on the post of assistant Statistical Officer, in the interest of justice. 4] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities and they may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Third Time- bound pay-scale w.e.f 07.03.2020, in the interest of justice. 5] Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was originally appointed vide order dated 3.3.1990 to the post of Investigator in the Tribal Development Department. At the time of bifurcation of the State 3 of Chhattisgarh, although the petitioner had opted for allocation of his services to the State of Chhattisgarh but his services were mistakenly allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. A representation was made to the Central Government in this regard. The Department convened the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 1.12.2011, and juniors to the petitioner, i.e., respondents No.4 to 6, were promoted to the post of Assistant Statistics Officer. 3. The Union of India issued a corrigendum on 28.3.2014, and the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, a specific order was issued by the State of Chhattisgarh on 4.4.2015 and the name of the petitioner was included in the gradation list and it was placed between Shri Vipin Bariha (Sr. No.10) and Shri Santosh Kumar (Sr. No.11). The petitioner made various representations claiming therein promotion to the post of Assistant Statistics Officer; however, those representations remained unheard. Consequently, the petitioner filed WPS No. 2959 of 2015, which was withdrawn on 7.10.2016 with liberty to revive the prayer. Thereafter, the petitioner again made representations for promotion and the grant of a third time-bound pay-scale after completion of 30 years of service; however, those representations have not been considered till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was posted as Investigator in the Tribal Development Department under the office of the Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Bilaspur. He would contend that although the petitioner opted for allocation of his services to the State of Chhattisgarh but his services were wrongly allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh, and this mistake was rectified by the Union of India vide order dated 4 28.3.2014. He would contend that as the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the gradation list, his name was not included. He would further contend that the name of the petitioner was included in the gradation list after 4.4.2015, when the State of Chhattisgarh passed a specific order. He would also submit that the petitioner made various representations, but his claim has not been considered yet. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the pending representations of the petitioner with regard to promotion to the post of Assistant Statistics Officer with effect from 1.12.2012, the date on which his juniors were promoted. He would further contend that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of the third time-bound pay scale with effect from 7.3.2020 on account of completion of 30 years of service. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Statistics Officer has already been considered, and an order of promotion was issued on 6.10.2023 vide Annexure-R/1. They would further submit that the claim of the petitioner seeking promotion and notional benefits with effect from 1.12.2011 are barred by the principles of delay and laches as the petitioner filed this petition only in the year 2021. However, regarding the claim for the third time-bound pay-scale with effect from 7.3.2020, they would submit that the claim of the petitioner may be considered by the respondent authorities. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 documents present on the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s claim relates back to 2011, when respondents No. 4 to 6 were promoted to the post of Assistant Statistics Officers. However, the petitioner approached this Court belatedly in 2020, after a gap of nearly nine years. Though repeated representations were made and a writ petition was also filed earlier but it is also well settled principle of law that such acts do not extend the period of limitation or create a fresh cause of action. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 in paragraph 17, held as under:-
Decision
13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi