1 CGHC010221492021 2026:CGHC:30152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4885 of 2021  Narottam Lal Sahu S/o Shri Bhagwat Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bode, Police Station Saja, Post Office Keshtara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Assistant Director General Of Police Administration, Police Headquarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Superintendent Of Police, Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 (ANNEXURE P/1), passed by respondent no. 03 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant benefits of earlier service with all consequential benefits to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.17 14:12:24 +0530 2 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts in brief are that initially petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) under 8th Wing of C.G. Armed Force vide order dated 06.09.2001 and was posted in Rajnandgaon District. In the year 2008, an advertisement was issued to fill-up the post of Constable(GD) in police department. The petitioner being eligible and qualified for the said post submitted his application form, at the same time, he took permission from the department, which was granted by the competent authority on 05.02.2008. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process, and subsequently, he was selected and an order of appointment was issued in his favour on 03.09.2008, and thereafter, on 28.01.2017, an application was moved before the respondent No. 2 claiming therein benefit of service rendered in armed forces. The application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.10.2017, wherein, it is specifically observed that on account of personal reasons, resignation was tendered by the petitioner and it was accepted on 16.07.2008, and therefore, claimed benefit cannot be granted. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing said order. 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate would contend that the petitioner applied for post of Constable (GD) in the police department and he was selected. He would submit that the petitioner was granted one day time to join services, and therefore, he approached the earlier employer to accept resignation. He would contend that earlier employer advised the petitioner to tender his resignation assigning personal reason, and therefore, an application for resignation was submitted by the petitioner describing physical condition of 3 his parents and wife. He would contend that resignation was tendered by the petitioner due to ignorance. It is also argued that the petitioner is entitled for benefit of service rendered with armed forces. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. She would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable (GD) in police department on 03.09.2008. The petitioner had tendered resignation in the moth of July, 2008, which was accepted by the competent authority on 16.07.2008, and after 9 years, an application was moved by the petitioner claiming benefit of earlier service. She would submit that the resignation was not technical one rather the petitioner had assigned personal reasons, therefore, he is not entitled for benefit of previous service, and further there is inordinate delay in filing this petition. She would submit that petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Having considered the fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable (GD) in the police department on 03.09.2008, whereas, resignation was tendered in the month of July, 2008 assigning personal reasons and it was accepted by the competent authority on 16.07.2008 and the petitioner approached the respondent authorities claiming benefit of previous service in the year 2017 after 9 years. Further the petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2021, whereas, an application moved by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 26.10.2017 and petitioner failed to explain delay part. In para 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that there is no delay in filing instant petition. 4 Therefore, in opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant