1 2025:CGHC:51568-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 751 of 2025 Madan Lal Sahu S/o Ganga Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years Working As Auditor And Posted At Office Of Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Santosh Kumar Dubey Superintendent At Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. 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 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.16 17:08:05 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain, Advocate for the appellant and also Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. for the State. 2. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 9248 of 2025, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant joined his services on 24.02.1980 on the post of Assistant Grade-III whereas he was regularized on 25.02.1988, whereas respondent No. 4 herein was appointed as Assistant Grade-III on 01.10.1980 and his services were regularized on 25.02.1988. He further submits that in the gradation list, the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 136 whereas respondent No. 4 is at Sr. No. 151. He further submits that respondent No. 4, who is junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent by order dated 28.09.2013 whereas the authorities directed the appellant to produce the Hindi Stenographer Examination certificate by letter dated 29.06.2017. Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking promotion, seniority over and above respondent No. 4 and also for setting aside the 3 promotion order of respondent No.4 dated 28.09.2013. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made. 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. Learned Single Judge after appreciating the submission made by rival parties, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant part of the order is quoted below:- “1. The petitioner who retired from the post of Assistant Superintendent in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department in the year 2021 has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 28.09.2013 (Annexure P/1) and 14.08.2013 (Annexure P/2) by which the respondent No. 4 has been promoted. 2. The petition has been filed after lapse of 12 years and even after the retirement of the petitioner, whereas it is well settled position of law that the promotional matters should be agitated before the Courts of law expeditiously so that the administrative hierarchy is not disturbed on later stage. 4 3. In view of the well settled position of law that the present writ petition is barred by limitation, I am of the view that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed accordingly, it is dismissed.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner preferred the writ petition after lapse of 12 years that too after his retirement from his service after attaining the age of superannuation without explaining the delay and laches by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. 8. 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. 9. 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. 5 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/