1 2025:CGHC:56232-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 837 of 2025 Nawal Kishor Baghel S/o Late Itwari Ram Baghel Aged About 62 Years (Now Retired on 30.06.2022) Formerly Posted As Deputy Manager( Survey) At Gevra Area SECL, Urja Nagar, Dipka Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495006 2 - The Coal India Limited Through The Chairman Coal Bhawan, Premises No. 04 Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Aa-Ia, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkota 700156 3 - The General Manager (Personal/recruitment) Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan, Premises No. 04, Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Aa-Ia, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkata 700156 4 - The Director Personnel Secl, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - The General Manager (Executive Establishment) Secl, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - The General Manager (Personnel And Administration) Secl, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - The General Manager Gevra Area, P.O. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/SECL : Mr. Vinod K. Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 11 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Vinod K. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 read with Rule 157(1) of Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2005, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2861 of 2021 (Nawal Kishor Baghel Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that earlier a writ petition was filed by the appellant before this Court being WP No. 2238/2001 with the following prayers : “(i) That, he be given the grade ‘A’ w.e.f. 2.7.1990. (ii) The petitioner be promoted in the grade of E-1 w.e.f. July, 1993 (iii) The petitioner be promoted in the grade of E-2 w.e.f. July, 1996. (iv) The petitioner be promoted in the grade of E-3 w.e.f. July, 1999. 3 (v) After promoting the petitioner in the above mentioned grades he be given all the monetary benefits including the arrears from the date when he becomes entitled for the same" 4. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2011 holding that the appellant having been promoted to E-1 grade on 16.05.2003, consequential promotion pursuant to the notional appointment given to him from 02.07.1990 in Grade-A could not be granted to him in the facts of the case. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred writ appeal which was registered as WA No. 137of 2011 and the said writ appeal was allowed to limited extent vide order dated 16.01.2015 and direction was given to re-convene the DPC and decide the eligibility of the appellant for promotion as on 10.10.1998 in accordance with law upon placing his Annual Confidential Report before the Review Departmental Promotion Committee. In view of the direction of this Court, a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 19.10.2016 and the decision of said Committee has been communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 18.11.2016 informing that he was not found eligible for promotion on selection from Non-Executive to Executive case as on 10.10.1998. 6. Despite having the knowledge of communication dated 18.11.2016, the petition chose to approach this Court only on 4 12.05.2021 i.e. after a delay of about four and a half years filing another writ petition being WPS No. 2861 of 2021, seeking following reliefs : “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to the respondents to consider and extend the promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Survey Officer in E-1 Grade at par with all the junior employees w.e.f. 04.08.1995 (Annexure P-7) along with all consequential, monetary and service benefits. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / command to the respondents to consider and extend the seniority to have selected and promoted the petitioner from Surveyor T&S Grade-A to the post of Assistant Survey Officer E-1 in view of the order dated 23.09.1996 (Annexure P-14) at par with other junior employees alongwith all the consequential monetary and service benefits placing the petitioner above the juniors in the seniority list. 10.3. That, a command / direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal and proper adjudication of the matter. 10.4. That, a suitable direction to the respondents may kindly be issued to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner in an objective manner by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and rules within a fixed period. 10.5. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded alongwith the cost of the petition.” 5 7. Though the said writ petition was admitted for hearing on 29.07.2021, but the same was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 30.07.2025 on the ground of delay and latches. Hence, this appeal. 8. Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of delay, ignoring the continuing cause of action arising from repeated representations (2019-2020) and respondents’ own observations/forwarding notes (Annexure P-25, P-26), which revived the claim as a recurring wrong in service matters like promotion and pay fixation. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648. He further submitted that Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant was already selected in DPC dated 22.09.2002 and promoted w.e.f. 16.05.2003, establishing his eligibility from 1993 onwards, and the Review DPC's 2016 denial was arbitrary despite qualifying marks, was arbitrary and contradictory to earlier DPC held on 2002 selection, amounting to mala-fide action. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge not considered the fact that the name of the appellant was excluded in DPC held on 1994-1998 due to non-submission of ACRs, thereafter the claim of the appellant for promotion were denied on non-viability of vacancy the appellant has filed petition 6 thereafter writ appeal bearing number WA No. 137/2011 was filed wherein respondents were directed to convinced review DPC vide order dated 16.01.2015. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod K. Deshmukh learned counsel for the respondents/SECL opposed the aforesaid submission and submits that bare perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition makes it amply evident that appellant, in fact, is aggrieved against the outcome of Review Departmental Promotion Committee dated 19.10.2016, which was convened in pursuance of the direction of this Hon'ble Court, and was communicated to the Petitioner on 18.11.2016. It is humbly submitted that, despite the knowledge of communication dated 18.11.2016 upon which the said petition was premised, the appellant chose to approach this Hon'ble Court only on 12.05.2021 i.e. after a delay of about four and a half years, as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which warrants no interference by this Court. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 610. He further submitted despite the fact that appellant derives his cause of action from the Review Departmental Promotion Committee dated 19.10.2016 and consequences arising thereof, the record of the said Committee has not been placed on record of this Hon'ble Court, not quashment of the 7 same has been sought along the consequential order flowing thereof namely the communication dated 18.11.2016 which is part of the petition and is marked as Annexure P/1. Hence, it is submitted that as appellant has failed to place on record the foundational facts and record, no effective relief can be granted to him. In the said context, he refer to the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v/s Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. From bare perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition, it transpires that, in fact, the appellant is aggrieved against the outcome of Review Departmental Promotion Committee dated 19.10.2016, which was convened in pursuance of the direction of this Hon'ble Court, and was communicated to the Petitioner on 18.11.2016 and despite having the knowledge of communication dated 18.11.2016 upon which the said petition was premised, the appellant chose to approach this Hon'ble Court only on 12.05.2021 i.e. after a delay of about four and a half years, as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which warrants no interference by this Court. 12. In view of the above, we find no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2861/2021 warranting interference by this Court. 8 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra