1 2025:CGHC:11940-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 173 of 2025 1 - Shivani W/o Sumit Kumar Nair Aged About 42 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, R/o C/o Nalini Bhausagar, Qt. No. 15/a, Street-1, Sector-4, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Khemin D/o Narottam Lal Aged About 36 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, R/o 14, Street-3, Block-6, Sector-5, Ward No. 44, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nidhi Rajput W/o Vikram Singh Rajput Aged About 36 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, R/o H.No. 881/7, Panchsheel Nagar, Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate, Medical Education, North Block, Sector - 19, Health Building, Second Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashunta Minj D/o Tarcius Minj Aged About 37 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, Medical College, Raipur, R/o Qt. No. 12/b, Street-14, Sector-1, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 4 - Geetanjali Thakur D/o Yadram Thakur Aged About 33 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, R/o Latabod, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Manisha Jameson W/o K.B. Jameson Aged About 36 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Kachndur, Durg, District Durg, C.G., --- R/o Plot No. 22/b, Radhika Nagar, Maitri Vihar, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Geetanjali D/o Indraman Aged About 34 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, R/o Qt. No. 17/b, Street - 33, Sector-10, Bhilai, Civic Center, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Linny Marshal W/o Marshal Swami Aged About 34 Years Occupation Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Kachndur, Durg, District Durg, C.G., --- R/o Plot No. 93, Ayappa Nagar, Near Shiva College, Ward No. 7, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 11/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No. 1 3 of 2025 stands allowed and delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 04.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7852 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal are that the petitioners/appellants are working on the post of Staff Nurse. The date of joining of appellants are 02.01.2013. Earlier the respondent authorities issued letter dated 23.07.2020 inviting objection against the provisional gradation list against which the appellant (Shivani) submitted her objection on 24.07.2020. Thereafter another objection was preferred by the appellant (Shivani) on 10.02.2021, however respondent No. 2 never decided her objection. The respondent department published the provisional gradation list on 28.08.2021 showing the status of seniority as on 01.04.2021. The appellant (Khemin) immediately submitted her objection against the provisional seniority list on 07.09.2021. Without deciding the objections of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 published the final seniority list on 31.01.2022. Aggrieved by the illegal act of the respondent No. 2, the petitioners preferred writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 6214/2023, which was disposed of on 12.09.2023 directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of petitioners in accordance with the relevant rules. The respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of 4 the petitioners vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024 on the ground that objection against the seniority list was not preferred within limitation of 15 days from the publication of the provisional seniority list. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 the petitioners filed second writ petition bearing WPS No. 7852/2024 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single bench on the ground of delay and laches. While deciding the writ petition Hon'ble single bench has given a finding at para No. 5 that petitioners have admitted that they are aware of their erroneous position in the gradation list since 2013, therefore, there is a delay in approaching the Court. It is necessary to produce the prayer made by the petitioners inn the writ petition, which is as under :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ/ or writs/ order/ or orders/ to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 (Ann. P-1), issued by the Respondent No. 2. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ/ or writs/ order/ or orders/ to the Respondent authorities to prepare fresh gradation list after following the rules and regulation applicable in the departments, in the ends of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief, this Hon’ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 5 After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches vide order dated 04.12.2024, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners would submit that the petitioner/appellant (Shivani) and petitioner (Khemin) is placed at serial no. 611 and Serial no. 598 respectivelly in the gradation list and the Staff Nurse Manisha Ramteke (S No. 549) and Tanuja Norke (S No. 550), who have taken joining on the post of Staff Nurse after the joining of petitioners has been placed higher in rank then the petitioners. He submits that there was no delay in filing of objection against the provisional seniority list published on 28.08.2021, the petitioner have already moved representation but the respondent no. 2 was sitting over the matter. There was also no delay in approaching the Hon'ble court, the cause of action arose only after the representation of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 23.07.2024. The Hon'ble court vide order dated 12.09.2023, passed in WPS 6214/2023 had specifically directed the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation in accordance with the relevant acts and rules, however the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation on the ground on non-filing of objection. The respondent No. 2 has not decided the objection of the petitioners/appellants on merits and has rejected the objection merely on technicalities. The rules governing the field of seniority specifically states that seniority shall be maintained from the date of joining of the employee and if there is any mistake on the face of record the respondent No. 2 is bound to 6 correct the mistake. The petitioners filed the WPS No. 7852/2024 for appropriate direction, which cannot be said to be suffered by delay and laches, yet the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, which is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the material produced in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal it is quite vivid that the petitioners claimed in the present writ petition for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2024 , issued by the respondent No. 2 and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to prepare fresh gradation list after following the rules and regulation applicable in the departments. The petitioners/appellants who are working on the post of Staff Nurse joined the service on 02.01.2013. The respondent authorities issued letter dated 23.07.2020 inviting objection against the provisional gradation list. The appellants submitted their objections, however respondent No.2 never decided their objection and respondent department published the provisional gradation list on 28.08.2021 showing the status of seniority as on 01.04.2021. Without deciding the objections of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 published the final seniority list on 31.01.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred WP(S) No. 6214/2023, which was disposed of on 12.09.2023 7 directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of petitioners. The respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024 on the ground that objection against the seniority list was not preferred within limitation of 15 days from the publication of the provisional seniority list. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 the petitioners filed second writ petition bearing WPS No. 7852/2024, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Bench on the ground of delay and laches. 8. Considering the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 and Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 883, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners holding that the petition suffers from delay and laches and the reasons for delay has not been satisfactorily explained, we are also concur with the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the finding recorded in the impugned order after adverting entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the learned Single Judge has come to conclusion which is neither perverse or contrary to the facts available in the record. 9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single 8 Judge while passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved