1 CGHC010170972026 2026:CGHC:28085-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 559 of 2026 Jairam Verma S/o Late Dharam Verma Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted And Working As Teacher (Local Body), Government Middle School Bisahutola, Block Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 6 - The District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 7 - The Block Education Officer Block Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 8 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Block Chhuria, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.08 17:36:59 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr.Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 & 7 For Respondents No.5 and 8 : : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Mr.Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Sauyma Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 & 7 and Mr.Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 8. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS 5544/2021 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. Facts in brief are that the the appellant was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III on 14.10.1998. The services of the appellant were regularized on 03.07.2002. He would contend that the appellant was promoted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II vide order dated 08.08.2017, whereas, similarly situated teachers, appointed in the year 1998, were promoted to the post of Shiksha 3 Karmi Grade II with effect from 2006 vide order dated 24.02.2018. He would submit that WPS No. 5723 of 2018 was filed and a direction was issued to decide the representation. The respondent No. 5/Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 11.01.2021 rejected the representation moved by the appellant on the ground that the services of the appellant have already been absorbed with the School Education Department pursuant to policy decision dated 30.06.2018. Against which, the appellant has filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the order dated 11.01.2021 was not under challenge. The said order was specifically referred to in Paragraph 3 of the writ petition as the impugned order rejecting the appellant's representation and denying parity with similarly situated employees. Though the date was not expressly mentioned in the relief clause, the challenge was evident from the pleadings read as a whole and was in continuation of the earlier order dated 04.09.2018, which directed consideration of the appellant's claim. The rejection dated 11.01.2021 constituted the real cause of action. He further submits that the finding of delay is erroneous. The cause of action arose only upon rejection of the appellant's representation by order dated 11.01.2021, pursuant to the directions issued on 04.09.2018. The writ petition was filed thereafter within a reasonable time. Learned Single Judge wrongly 4 examined the issue of delay from the year 2006, overlooking that the present writ petition constituted a second round of litigation arising out of subsequent developments, namely, the respondent's rejection of the representation despite the earlier judicial direction dated 04.09.2018, which had attained finality. 5. Learned counsel also submits that the finding that the order dated 11.01.2021 was not part of the writ petition is factually incorrect. The impugned order was specifically pleaded in Paragraph 3 and elaborately discussed in Paragraph 8.11 of the writ petition, forming the very foundation of the challenge. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the departmental instruction dated 30.06.2018, imposing a ban on promotions, operates prospectively and cannot defeat the appellant's accrued right to promotion, which had crystallized upon completion of seven years of service in 2005. The order dated 04.09.2018 in W.P.(S) No. 5723/2018 had attained finality and directed the respondents to consider the appellant's case in light of benefits extended to similarly situated employees. Having granted identical benefits to others, the respondents were under a legal obligation to extend the same treatment to the appellant. He contended that learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant's grievance is founded on a continuing wrong. The respondents continue to deny the appellant the benefit of retrospective promotion while similarly situated employees have been granted such benefit from 2006, resulting in continuing discrimination. He further contended that 5 the writ petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches when the cause of action arose from the rejection order dated 11.01.2021, passed in disregard of the binding order dated 04.09.2018. The respondents' failure to comply with the earlier order and to grant parity gave rise to a fresh and continuing cause of action, rendering the writ petition maintainable. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 & 7 and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 8 oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that learned Single Judge considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, which warrants no interference by this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present writ appeal. 8. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the appellant seeks retrospective promotion with effect from the year 2006. Such claim has been raised after an inordinate lapse of time, and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the delay. The plea that the cause of action arose only upon rejection of the representation dated 11.01.2021 cannot be accepted, as rejection of a representation does not revive a stale or time-barred claim. 6 Further, we find that the order dated 11.01.2021, whereby the appellant's representation came to be rejected, was not specifically challenged in the relief clause of the writ petition. In the absence of any substantive prayer seeking quashment of the said order, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the writ petition was not maintainable. 9. It is well settled that repeated representations or rejection thereof do not furnish a fresh cause of action so as to overcome the bar of delay and laches. The appellant cannot seek to reopen a claim relating to the year 2006 by relying upon the subsequent rejection of his representation. 10.In view of the aforesaid, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of unexplained delay and laches as well as the failure to challenge the order dated 11.01.2021 in an appropriate manner. 11.Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ appeal, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu