1 2025:CGHC:37130-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 545 of 2025 Devlal Sahu S/o Shri Chamru Ram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher, Panchayat, Govt. Primary School, Madanpur, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Presently Posted And Working As Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Madanpur, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Collector. Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham) 3 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 4 District Education Officer, Kabirdham, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 10:34:45 +0530 2 5 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya, Kabirdham, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 Block Education Officer, Pandariya, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 Dhanku Ram Ratre, Govt. Primary School, Nanapuri, Block Pandariya, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. Presently Posted And Working As Teacher, Govt. Pre-Middle School, Kharhatta, Block Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant and also Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. for the State and Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate for respondent No. 5. 2. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 605 of 2017, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner on the 3 ground of delay and laches. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under the respondent authorities vide order dated 16.12.1998 and thereafter his services were regularized vide order dated 09.07.2002. He would contend that respondent No. 7, who is junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-Il in the year 2011 but the candidature of the petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the reasons best known to them. He would further contend that a representation was made to the respondent authorities but no heed was paid, therefore the petitioner preferred WPS No.3550 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.08.2016 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the authority concerned and in turn, the authority concerned was directed to decide it within a period of six months from the date of receipt of representation. It is contended by Mr. Shrivastava that thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation along with a copy of the order of this Court before the respondent authorities and the concerned authority vide order dated 25.10.2016 rejected the representation of the petitioner. He further submits that thereafter another writ petition was filed bearing number WPS No. 605 of 2017 which was dismissed on 4 the ground of delay and laches. He further submits that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 25.10.2016 and the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was filed on 31.01.2017 i.e. after 96 days and as such there is no such delay. He would lastly submit the petitioner is entitled to get promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-ll w.e.f. 04.01.2011 along with all consequential benefits including the seniority. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivsatava. He would further submit that the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage, thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- 11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of Rushibhai the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Chennal Metropolitan Water Supply (supra). Jagdishbhai Pathak (supra) and Bichitrananda Behera (supra), it can safely be held that (i) the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of six years; (ii) in para 7 of the writ petition, he has stated that there is no delay in filing the instant petition; (iii) he utterly 5 failed to explain the delay caused in filing the instant petition, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on account of delay and laches at the motion stage itself. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. The writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the same plea which has been taken before the learned Single Judge and challenging the order dated 20.06.2025 passed in WPS No. 605 of 2017 and praying that the petitioner be granted promotion on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II w.e.f from 04.01.2011 along with all consequential benefits including seniority, monetary benefits etc 8. Bare perusal of the records show that the representation of the appellant before the competent authority was dismissed observing that the promotion of the teachers were done according to directive/ instructions of the C.G. Government Panchayat and Rural Development Department and as per instructions promotion of teacher (Panchayat) was to be done on the vacant post as available. It was specifically mentioned that the writ petitioner/ appellant is from Arts/ Commerce stream for which unreserved posts were not available for promotion and therefore he was not 6 promoted. However, it is categorically stated in the order dated 25/10/2016 that the benefit of time bound pay scale has been extended in favour of the petitioner. 9. Further perusal of the records shows that the petitioner has filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on 31.01.2017 and has claimed promotion from 04.01.2011, the date on which his junior/ respondent No. 7 was promoted which is with delay of almost 6 years. 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 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, 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 7 the parties. 11. It is the well established principles of law that delay has always been considered vital in service matters especially with regard to promotion. As far back as (1975) 1 SCC 152, P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion under Article 226 that the Court should not entertain claims regarding seniority after an approximate period of 6 months from the date of cause of action to prevent clogging the dockets of the Court and which would impede the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances timely. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, we are of the view that the order passed by learned single judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar