1 2025:CGHC:14199-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 203 of 2025 Smt. Santoshi Wadyakar W/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Wadyakar Aged About 47 Years Posted In Govt. Higher Secondary School, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - District Education Officer District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Director Of Public Instruction D.P.I. Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.03.2025 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.25 17:05:35 +0530 2 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1824 of 2016, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein by observing as under:- “20. In light of aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court- in-afore-cited cases, if the case in hand is considered, then it is clear that though petitioners were wrongly appointed as contingent paid employee, rather, in light of prevailing instructions /circular dated 10th June, 1994 (Annexure P-3) issued by the then State of Madhya Pradesh and subsequent instructions /circular dated 12th February, 2008 (Annexure P-5) issued by State of Chhattisgarh, they ought to have been appointed on regular post, but it is also apparent from the record that petitioners did not raise their grievance neither at the time of their appointment or immediately thereafter nor even after their regularization i.e. in the year 2008 / 2014, rather they are raising grievance first time after lapse of 18 to 20 years. If relief, which contained / involved seniority, promotion, etc., is granted to them from the back date, that too, after 18 to 20 years, then it will upset the seniority of other regular appointees, who are not party before this Court, therefore, applying ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in afore-cited cases, in the considered opinion of this Court, relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted to them after such huge delay and latches i.e. after 18 to 20 years.” 3. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the appellant as to why he has not raised his grievance neither at the time 3 of his appointment or immediately thereafter nor even after his regularization i.e. in the year 2018 / 2014, rather they are raising their grievance after a lapse of 18 to 20 years, he has not offered any plausible explanation for the said delay. 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 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 recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a 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.” 4 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. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant 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 5 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 the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet