1 2025:CGHC:11685-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 157 of 2025 Mumtaz Khan S/o Mohammad Khan Aged About 63 Years Earlier Posted As Electrician- Cum Pump Attendant, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, R/o Purani Mandir Parishar, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Rajnandgaon Through Its Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel appearing for the BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.10 17:49:01 +0530 2 respondent on I.A. No. 1 of 0224, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 06 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition W.P.(S) No.1535/2016, may kindly be set- aside, in the interest of justice.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 1535 of 2016 (Mumtaz Khan v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Rajnandgaon), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 5. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge is that WPS No.1535/2016 was a third round of litigation. Earlier, the appellant/writ petitioner had preferred writ petitions bearing number WP No.238/2003 & WP No.1808/2003, for quashing order dated 31.05.2003 (Annexure P/7), whereby the 3 appellant’s/writ petitioner’s services on the post of Electrician cum Pump Attendant was terminated and to direct the respondent for treating the appellant/writ petitioner as regular employee since 07.11.1981 and to give all consequential benefits and seniority and also compensation for sufferance on account of not regularizing his services respectively. The aforesaid two writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide a common order dated 04.03.2013, wherein, WP No.1808/2003 was allowed quashing order dated 31.05.2003 and WP No.238/2003 was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the appellant/writ petitioner in light of the observation made therein. However, it is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that his representations were not considered and his services were not regularized and orders dated 13.08.2013 & 24.03.2014 were passed. 6. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 13.08.2013 & 24.03.2014, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.1535/2016, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.11.2024. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that 4 the learned Single Judge has committed error of law in holding that the second writ petition claiming same relief is not maintainable as after denial of the benefits by the respondent in the year 2014, the writ petition has been filed. As such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant 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. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 11. 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 observing as follows :- “3. Furthermore, as once the writ petition claiming regularization w.e.f. 07.11.1981 and consequential benefits, seniority has been disposed of, the second writ petition claiming the same relief is not maintainable. At first, the petitioner could have taken steps for non-compliance of order dated 04.03.2013 passed in WP No.238/2003, which has not been done 5 and, secondly, this writ petition challenging orders dated 13.08.2013 & 24.03.2014 has been filed on 26.04.2016, as such, it suffers from delay and latches and, therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained on account of delay. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).” 12. 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. 13. 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 Brijmohan