1 2025:CGHC:39632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5610 of 2021 * - Dinesh Dewangan S/o Late Guman Singh Dewangan Aged About 54 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer, In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B/R) North Baster, Division No. 1, Jagdalpur District Baster Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Sector-19, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : None appeared, even in two rounds For Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 and direct the respondent no. 2 to provide/count seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and to grant all consequential benefit to the petitioner. 2. It is pleaded that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub- Engineer on daily wages vide order dated 17/21 November 1986. The petitioner has claimed seniority from the date of initial appointment along with other consequential benefits. Pursuant to order passed in Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.13 12:08:03 +0530 2 WPS No. 742/2019, the claim of the petitioner was considered by a Committee and it has been rejected vide order dated 25.09.2019. It is also pleaded that in O.A. No. 1979/1991 an order was passed in favour of the petitioner, but benefit has not been extended to him. It is also pleaded that the similarly situated Sub-Engineers have filed WPS No. 958/2020 wherein direction was issued to the Committee to take decision. It is further pleaded that the Committee has not considered the claim of the petitioner in the proper prospective. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would contend that though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986, but the petition has been filed in the year 2021. He would further contend that the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 25.09.2019 and this petition has been filed on 28.09.2021 after delay of 02 years without explaining reasons. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer and perused the documents. 5. In para- 7 of the petition, the petitioner has pleaded that there is no period of limitation for filing writ petition. It is further pleaded that the petitions filed by the similarly situated Sub-Engineers were considered by this Court and thereafter this petition has been preferred. 6. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer on daily wages vide order date 17/21 November 1986. The petitioner made a representation before the authorities concerned pursuant to order passed in WPS No.742/2019 in the matter of petitioner wherein 3 direction was issued to constitute a Committee and decide the grievance of the petitioner. 7. The coordinate bench in WPS No. 836/2019 in the matter of Purushottam Lal Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 05 Ors vide order dated 08.02.2019 dealing with the similar issue, dismissed the petition and in para- 5 has observed as under:- “5. Given the aforesaid factual position, it is evidently clear that the respondent No. 6 became Assistant Grade III in the department being senior to the petitioner, as the petitioner was regularized only on 03/06/2016 and as such, he became Assistant Grade III on 03/06/2016 and the entire service rendered by the petitioner prior to 03/06/2016 was only as a daily wage employee which cannot be reckoned for the purpose of granting seniority unless specifically ordered. In view of the same, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner for interfering with the impugned order of promotion dated 14/12/2018.” 8. In the present case, the Committee was constituted and thereafter Chief Engineer, Public Works Department considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected it vide order dated 25.09.2019. 9. Considering the order passed in WPS No. 836/2019 and the reasons assigned by the authorities concerned, I do not find any good ground to interfere. 10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti