1 CGHC010354832022 2026:CGHC:30077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7720 of 2022 * - P.C. Ratre S/o Fagulal Ratre Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade II, District And Session Court Korba, District Court Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagr, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District And Session Judge Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tarun Ogre Presently Working As Assistant Grade II, District And Session Court Korba, District Court Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 3 For Respondent No. 2/State : : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Kawal Jeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the promotion order dated 15.03.2011 in respect of respondent no. 4 and order for promotion of the petitioner from 15.03.2011. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.16 14:21:37 +0530 2 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on 14.09.1994 under the respondent No. 3. The name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 5, whereas the respondent No. 4 was at Serial No. 15. The respondent No. 4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III on 25.04.2005. The DPC was convened on 31.10.2010 for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II and review DPC was convened on 26.11.2010. In the subsequent DPC, name of the petitioner was considered, but he was not found suitable for promotion and name of respondent No. 4 was recommended. Order of promotion was issued on 15.03.2011. Representations were made by the petitioner on 28.04.2011 and 19.10.2022 and thereafter the petitioner filed this writ petition on 01.11.2022. 3. Mr. Vikram Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that junior to the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II in DPC convened on 26.11.2010 and consequently respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II. He would contend that without assigning sufficient reason, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. He would submit that action on the part of respondent No. 3 is discriminatory. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and Mr. Kawal Jeet Singh Saini learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner has claimed promotion with effect from 15.03.2011, but has filed this petition on 01.11.2022 after 11 years without explaining delay. They would contend 3 that the respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 15.03.2011. They would further contend that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 19.12.2019 and at that point of time, no objection was raised by the petitioner. They would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Sasipriya reported in AIRONLINE 2026 SC 323 and State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari reported in AIR 2014 SC (SUPP) 1772. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs No. 16 to 20 held as under:- “16. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantarayit has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik. 17. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others, a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryanaand proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992. 18. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:- “…..filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the 4 part of a Government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 19. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another. 20. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.” 7. In R. Sasipriya (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 25.2 held as under:- “25.2 This Court finds him to be a fence-sitter. It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be permitted to raise a dispute relating to seniority and consequential promotion or challenge the validity of an order after the matter has concluded. No party can claim relief as a matter of right, and one of the well-recognised grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and laches. A court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage the agitation of stale claims, particularly in the matters of seniority and promotion, where the rights of third parties have crystallised in the interregnum [See Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others, (2010) 12 SCC 471 : (AIR 2010 SC 706)]. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the impleading applicant.” 5 8. Having consider the facts of the present case, particularly the petitioner approached this Court after 11 years without explaining delay and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti