1 2026:CGHC:215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8266 of 2018 Banshilal Dhargav S/o Late Rajram Dhargav Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Ambagarh Chwoki, District Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lok Shikshan Sanchnalay, First Floor, C Block Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Education Officer Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Assistant Commissioner Ajak, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Girls Primary School, Mohla, Through Dean, Block Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- 2 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to release the retiremental benefit, pension and other service benefit of the petitioner's wife to the petitioner. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record pertaining to the job of petitioner's wife. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that wife of the petitioner, who was working with the respondents-Department on different schools. She was initially appointed in the 1966 and served with respondents-Department till 1981. In the year 1980-81, she suffered from cancer and during that period, she made communication with the Department and asked for voluntary retirement and ultimately she died in the year 2015 due to cancer. Before her death, she made several representations to the respondent authorities claiming her retiral dues and other benefits of the job. After her death also, the petitioner was not paid any service benefit like pension and other benefits of her wife by the respondents-Department. Subsequently, it was informed by the respondents-Department that wife of the petitioner was terminated from service on 17.02.1981, on the ground of unauthorized absence from the job. Against such action of the respondents- Department, instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking reliefs, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State while opposing the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the petitioner's wife was terminated from service vide order dated 16.02.1989 vide Annexure R-1 with effect from 17.02.1981 on account of unauthorized absence from duty, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any retiral 3 dues and other benefits of service of his wife. He further submits that during life time of the petitioner's wife, neither she challenged her termination order before any forum nor filed any writ petition in this regard. Even after, the petitioner has come-up before this Court after considerable period of about 29 years, as such, the instant petition suffers from delay & latches. It is contended that as the petitioner's wife was terminated from service, therefore, she was not entitled to get any retiral benefits. It is lastly contended that since State of Madhya Pradesh is not arrayed as party respondent in the instant writ petition, therefore, the instant writ petition also suffers from non- joinder of necessary party. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Though, claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner's wife was working with the respondents-Department and died in the year 2015, but no retiral dues have been paid to her during her life time or her husband i.e. petitioner. 6. From bare perusal of the return filed by the respondents-State, it is clear the petitioner's wife was termination from service vide order dated 16.02.1989 vide Annexure R-1 with effect from 17.02.1981 on account of unauthorized absence from duties. The said order was passed in the year 1989, despite that neither the same was challenged by the petitioner's wife during her life time before any of the forum nor has filed any writ petition in this regard. It also reveal that the petitioner claimed the aforesaid relief after an inordinate delay of more than 29 years, as her wife was terminated from service in the year 1989 whereas the petitioner has filed instant writ petition in the year 2018. 7. Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as claimed, as the 4 termination order of the petitioner's wife has not been set-aside/quashed by any of the forum and there is an inordinate delay of more than 29 years in filing the instant writ petition. 8. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.08 18:19:41 +0530