1 2025:CGHC:23920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3968 of 2025 1 - G.D. Mahant S/o Late Shri Haricharan Das Mahant Aged About 62 Years R/o Premnagar, Surakachhar, Post Bhairotal, Kusmunda, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Commissioner- Cum- Director Director Of Technical Education, Block- 3, 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Principal, Government Polytechnic Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 13/06/2025 1. By way of the present writ petition the present petitioner is claiming for grant of annual increment to the petitioner for the year 2013 and 2014. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted as Lab Technician in the Govt. Polytechnic College, Gariyaband SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.14 14:45:53 +0530 2 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.10.20213 by the Respondent No. 2. Earlier he has challenged his suspension order by filing a WPS No. 2095/2014, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach before the competent authority by filing the departmental appeal. In the departmental appeal, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked by order dated 24.07.2014 and he was reinstated. But, he has not been granted his annual increment in the year 2013 & 2014. Therefore, the same may be granted to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and would submit that the petition is highly belated and the petitioner has not explained any reason for delay in filing the present petition and claiming for grant of annual increment which has to been claimed for the year 2013 and 2014. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioner was under suspension in the year 2013 and his suspension order was revoked vide order dated 24.07.2013 by the appellate authority and he was reinstated. But admittedly, he has not claimed his annual increment for the year 2013 and 2014 and has not filed any petition or representation for the same. First time he claimed the increment on 28/09/2024 for the year 2013 and 2014 and then the present writ petition has been filed. 3 6. In the matter of “Bichitranand Behra v. State of Orissa and others” 2023 Live Law SC 883, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 21 has held as under:- “21. Profitably, we may reproduce relevant passages from certain decisions of this Court: (A) Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648: “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 refixation 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. 4 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.” (emphasis supplied) (B) Union of India v N Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25:” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further in view of the above said law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petition suffers by delay and latches and there is no explanation by the petitioner for the same. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika