1 2026:CGHC:527-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 961 of 2025 Babu Lal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Latel Ram Dewangan Aged About 61 Years (Presently 64 Years) Assistant Grade- 3, District Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue Department Ministry Atal Nagar, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. Collector, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 3. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.06 17:33:19 +0530 2 Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, 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. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5502 of 2020 (Babu Lal Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was initially considered for appointment pursuant to a notice/advertisement issued by the office of the Collector, Rajnandgaon, inviting applications for the post of Peon in the Collectorate establishment. It was submitted that the entire recruitment process, including issuance of the advertisement, calling of eligible candidates, and conduct of interviews, was undertaken by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, in exercise of his administrative authority. The appellant participated in the said selection process and was found suitable. According to learned counsel, since the recruitment process was initiated, controlled, and concluded by the Collectorate, the appointment of the appellant must be treated as one made to the establishment of 3 the Collector, Rajnandgaon, and not to any separate or autonomous body such as the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA). 5. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the said selection process, the appellant was selected along with several other candidates and an appointment order was issued by the Collector, Rajnandgaon. Though under the said order the appellant was posted to work in DRDA, such posting was purely administrative and temporary in nature. It was urged that at the relevant time DRDA was functioning under the administrative control of the Collector and was an integral part of the Collectorate framework, operating from the same premises. The posting of the appellant to DRDA, along with other selected candidates, was thus only a matter of deployment and could not be construed as a direct appointment in DRDA. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that DRDA, by its very constitution and governing administrative guidelines, was never vested with the power to make direct recruitment and that staffing of DRDA was required to be done only through deputation from the parent departments. On this premise, it was argued that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the appellant was appointed directly in DRDA is erroneous and contrary to law and record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from non-consideration of the binding statutory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Act of 1993”). Particular reliance was placed on 4 Sections 52 and 131 of the Act of 1993, which provide protection to the pay, allowances, and service conditions of employees upon merger of DRDA with the Zila Panchayat. It was argued that these provisions demonstrate a clear legislative intent to preserve continuity of service and protect employees from adverse consequences arising out of administrative restructuring. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to apply the binding ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court in C.N. Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2012 (2) CGLJ 88, wherein it has been held that employees appointed by the Collectorate and subsequently posted or deputed to DRDA cannot be treated as direct employees of DRDA or the Zila Panchayat. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the learned Single Judge erred in failing to appreciate the settled distinction between “appointment” and “posting.” It was submitted that appointment determines the source of entry into service, whereas posting is merely an incident of service governed by administrative exigencies. According to learned counsel, the appellant was appointed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, to the post of Peon and his placement in DRDA was only a subsequent posting arrangement. It was further argued that the finding on delay and laches is unsustainable, as the appellant had been continuously pursuing his grievance through departmental representations and the cause of action finally arose only upon rejection of his claim in the year 2020, whereafter the writ petition was filed without undue delay. 5 8. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that though the appointment order was issued by the District Collector, the appellant was appointed to the office of DRDA, Rajnandgaon, right from the year 1983. It was submitted that the appellant remained under the administrative control and supervision of DRDA throughout his service and was also granted promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the said office. Learned State counsel further submitted that during the existence of DRDA, the District Collector was the Chairman of DRDA by virtue of his office and, therefore, issuance of the appointment order by the Collector does not imply that the appointment was to the Collectorate establishment. 9. Learned State counsel further contended that Clause 3 of the appointment order clearly indicates that the appellant was appointed in the office of DRDA, Rajnandgaon. It was submitted that after enactment of the Act of 1993, DRDA stood merged into the Zila Panchayat and thereafter the Zila Panchayat became the competent authority for administration, control, and supervision of the employees of the erstwhile DRDA. Consequently, the appellant became an employee of the Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, and retired from that office. It was also contended that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 25 years from the date of appointment and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as well. 6 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined the pleadings and documents placed on record. 11. On perusal of the appointment order dated 12.02.1983, it is evident that the appellant was appointed on the post of Peon and Clause 3 of the said order clearly demonstrates that his appointment was made in the office of DRDA, Rajnandgaon, and he was posted there. The service record also reveals that the service book of the appellant was prepared and maintained by DRDA. Merely because the appointment order was issued by the office of the Collector, Rajnandgaon—who was the Chairman of DRDA by virtue of his post—it cannot be held that the appellant was appointed to the Collectorate or Revenue Department. The appellant continued to serve under DRDA and thereafter under the Zila Panchayat upon merger, and he retired from the said establishment. Further, if the appellant had any grievance regarding his appointment or place of posting, he ought to have approached the Court at an earlier point of time. The writ petition having been filed after more than 25 years from the date of appointment and after retirement, the learned Single Judge rightly declined to grant relief. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan