-1- 2025:CGHC:37419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2861 of 2021 Nawal Kishor Baghel S/o Late Itwari Ram Baghel Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Deputy Manager( Survey) At Gevra Area Secl, Urja Nagar, Dipka Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through The Chairman -Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495006. 2 - The Coal India Limited Through The Chairman Coal Bhawan, Premises No. 04 Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Aa-Ia, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkota 700156. 3 - The General Manager (Personal/recruitment) Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan, Premises No. 04, Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Aa-Ia, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkata 700156. 4 - The Director Personnel Secl, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The General Manager (Executive Establishment) Secl, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The General Manager (Personnel And Administration) Secl, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - The General Manager Gevra Area, P.O. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.07.2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to the respondents to consider and extend the promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Survey Officer in E-1 Grade at par with all the junior employees w.e.f. 04.08.1995 (Annexure P-7) along with all consequential, monetary and service benefits. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / command to the respondents to consider and extend the seniority to have selected and promoted the petitioner from Surveyor T&S Grade-A to the post of Assistant Survey Officer E-1 in view of the order dated 23.09.1996 (Annexure P-14) at par with other junior employees alongwith all the consequential monetary and service benefits placing the petitioner above the juniors in the seniority list. 10.3. That, a command / direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal and proper adjudication of the matter. 10.4. That, a suitable direction to the respondents may kindly be issued to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner in an objective manner by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and rules within a fixed period. 10.5. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded alongwith the cost of the petition.” 2) Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Surveyor T & S Grade-C instead of Grade-A on 02.07.1990. He would further submit that in the DPC convened in the year 1997, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview held on 24.12.1997. However, the result was not communicated. He -3- would further submit that under the RTI, it came to light that his panel position was not determined due to non-receipt of ACRs. He would also submit that in Writ Petition No. 2238/2001, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 16.01.2015 directed the reconsideration of the petitioner’s case in light of ACRs. However, upon reconvening the DPC in 2016, the petitioner was again held ineligible without any basis, though he was selected by the DPC held in the year 2002. Mr. Shukla would argue that the petitioner held the post of Assistant Manager (E-3) by 2016, whereas his juniors, namely Shri Adarsh Kumar Jha and others, were granted successive promotions up to the E-6 level, whereas the petitioner remained stagnated at Cadre E-4. It is further argued that the cadre scheme and circulars clearly show that the petitioner was eligible for promotion in the year 1993 itself. He stated that repeated representations were made by the petitioner, but no final decision has been communicated till date. He argued that repeated denial of rightful promotions would cause immense humiliation, discrimination and financial loss to the petitioner; thus, he would pray to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Adarsh Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s), submitted that the petitioner’s claim of promotion pertains to the years 1995 and 1996, whereas this writ petition was filed only on 12.05.2021, after a delay of more than 25 years. He would contend that in para. 7, it is stated that there is a delay of more than 4 years, but the delay has not been explained properly. Therefore, the petition suffers from gross delay and laches. -4- 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5) The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Surveyor in T&S Grade “C” on 02.07.1990, and he was granted notional seniority w.e.f. 04.03.1994 on the post of Surveyor, T&S Grade A. The petitioner was also paid the differential wages. A DPC was held on 19.08.1994, and Surveyors, who had completed three years of service as T&S Grade “A”, were promoted to the executive cadre as Assistant Survey Officer E-1, vide order dated 04.08.1995. Subsequently, vide order dated 10.01.1996, some employees were promoted to Grade E-1, but the petitioner’s name was not considered. Later, further promotions were made vide order dated 23.09.1996. The petitioner also participated in an interview held on 20.12.1997 for promotion to the post of Assistant Surveyor, Grade E-1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2011. 6) A bare perusal of the pleadings and reliefs sought reveals that the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner in the years 1995 and 1996. The present writ petition was filed only on 12.05.2021 after an unexplained delay of over two decades. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 has clearly held that, especially in service claims, repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action in favor of the litigants. 8) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) -5- 2 SCC 59, (SCC p. 66, para 15) on belated representations laid down the following, which is extracted below:- "15. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches." 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Jindal vs. Rajni Mahajan and Others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 533, in para 5, held as under:- “5. We are not finally opining on the issue as to whether the DPC should have been postponed or not; the ACRs only up to the year the vacancy arose should have been considered or it should be up to the date of holding of DPC. the fact remains that Respondent 1 was promoted way back in the year 2007. More than 15 years have elapsed. She was otherwise also senior to the appellant in the cadre of Lecturers and there may have been further promotions of both the parties as well as in the department where they are working. Any order passed at this stage may affect number of persons and further may result in unsettling many positions which have already settled with the lapse of time. Hence, we do not find that a case is made for interference by this Court.” 10) It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. 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 an impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation, which, in an acceptable realm -6- of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons; such delay does not deserve any indulgence, and on the said ground alone, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition at the very threshold. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter, statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace. There must be a lifespan during which a person must approach the court for their remedy. Otherwise, there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the parties. 11) In view of the inordinate and unexplained delay, as well as the earlier dismissal of a similar writ petition, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim