1 2025:CGHC:3299-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 21 of 2025 Pokhraj Tarak S/o Madan Lal Tarak Aged About 30 Years Ex Rojgar Sahayak, At O/o The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, District Raipur, R/o Village And P.O. Khola, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur C.G., District- Raipur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Collector District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. Juhi Anguriya, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.20 18:23:15 +0530 2 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “I. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ appeal; quashing the impugned order, dt. 22/11/2024 passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P.(S) No.1998/2021 Annexure-A/1. ii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dt. 25/11/2017 Annexure-A/ 3 on grounds of it being stigmatic in nature. iii. Any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. iv. Cost of appeal may kindly be allowed.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1998 of 2021 (Pokhraj Tarak v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of ‘Rojgar Sahayak’ on a contract basis vide order dated 23.11.2009 for a period of 1 year. His services were extended from time to time up to 25.11.2017. The petitioner committed certain financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.96,000/- in the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna, thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. The petitioner deposited the entire amount with 3 respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 vide order dated 25.11.2017, removed the petitioner from services on the ground that in inquiry, the allegation levelled against him was found proved with regard to the withdrawal of amount from the account of the beneficiaries. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid action i.e. against the order dated 25.11.2017, the petitioner has filed the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.1998 of 2021, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 12.11.2024 on the grounds of delay and laches. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed grave error in dismissing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set- aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 4 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by relying upon the various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as further relying upon the settled preposition of law that repeated representations neither extend the period of limitation nor revive a cause of action to overcome delay and laches, by observing as follows :- “13. Mere filing of representation in the instant case is not sufficient cause to explain the delay in approaching this Court and in the present case; the petitioner could not file the writ petition immediately after the issuance of the order impugned dated 25.11.2017. 14. Taking into consideration the above- discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.” 5 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu