1 CGHC010384222022 2026:CGHC:30013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8681 of 2022  Roshni Sharma W/o Sanjay Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o D-10, PNT Colony, Tagore Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Cultural And Archaeology, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Department Of Cultural And Archaeology, New Raj Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To kindly direct the respondent authorities to comply with the recruitment rules / official gazette and amend the position of the Petitioner as Senior Guide. 10.2 To kindly direct the respondents to correctly instate the Petitioner in the senior pay scale. 10.3 Any other relief(s) in favor of Petitioneras this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. Facts in brief are that an advertisement was issued on 25.10.2007 to fill up SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.16 14:09:20 +0530 2 various posts including one post of Guide on pay scale of 3500-5200. The petitioner being an eligible candidate, applied for the said post. She participated in the written examination, consequently, she was selected and an order of appointment was issued on 13.05.2008. Subsequently, petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Guide vide order dated 25.09.2021, and thereafter, the petitioner preferred this petition on 21.11.2022 claiming therein pay scale of Senior Guide from date of initial appointment. 3. Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per Chhattisgarh Archaeology, Archives and Museums Class-III (Non- Gazetted, Non-Clerical) Service Recruitment Rules, there are Junior and Senior Guide positions. He would contend that an advertisement was issued to fill-up post of Guide and petitioner was appointed against said post, therefore, she is entitled to get pay scale admissible to Senior Guide. He would submit that according to sanctioned set-up, there were posts of Junior Guide and Senior Guide, but advertisement was issued for the post of Guide alone, therefore, it would be deemed that petitioner was appointed against vacant and sanctioned post of Senior Guide. It is also contended that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for the post of Senior Guide. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dave. Mr. Kumrani would submit that an advertisement was issued on 25.10.2007, wherein, pay scale was duly prescribed, but no objection was raised by the petitioner at that point of time. He would contend that the petitioner knowing very well the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, submitted her application form 3 and participated in the recruitment process. He would further contend that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Guide in pay scale of 3500-5200, which was admissible to Junior Guide and again no objection was raised at that point of time when she accepted the offer of appointment. He would contend that the petitioner worked on the said post till 2021 and she was promoted to the post of Senior Guide vide order dated 25.09.2021. It is argued that again petitioner without any protest joined on the promotional post, and thereafter, filed this writ petition without explaining cause of delay. He would submit that according to sanctioned set-up of 2008 there are posts of Junior Guide and Senior Guide and petitioner was appointed against the post of Junior Guide, and therefore, instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, an advertisement was issued for various posts including one post of Guide in pay scale of 3500-5200 on 25.10.2007. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and was selected. An order of appointment was issued in her favour on 13.05.2008. She was appointed against the post of Guide in pay scale of 3500-5200. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Guide vide order dated 25.09.2021. It is admitted fact that the petitioner did not raise objection with regard to admissible pay scale on the date of appointment i.e. 13.05.2008, and subsequently, she accepted an offer of promotion dated 25.09.2021 without any demur. It is true that in the recruitment rules, Junior Guide and Senior Guide are two different posts and petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post of Guide, though word ‘Junior’ was neither used in 4 advertisement nor in the order of appointment, but pay scale described in the order of appointment would reveal that petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post of Junior Guide. 7. The petitioner approached this Court claiming therein pay scale admissible to Senior Guide after 12 years from date of appointment without explaining delay. In para 7, it is stated that there is no delay in filing instant petition. The claim of the petitioner certainly suffers from delay and laches. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, while dealing with a similar issue in para 2 held as under:- “2. ………………...One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. There is the further fact that even after respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as Divisional Engineers over the head of the appellant he did not come to the Court questioning it. There was a third opportunity for him to have come to the Court when respondents 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending Engineers over the head of the appellant. After fourteen long years because of the tempting prospect of the Chief Engineership he has come to the Court. In effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. It is very difficult for the Government to consider whether any relaxation of the rules should have been made in favour of the appellant in the year 1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957 cannot be reproduced now. In any case as the Government had decided as a matter of policy, as they were entitled to do, not to relax the rules in favour of any except overseas scholars t will be wholly pointless to direct them to consider the appellants' case as if nothing had happened after 1957. Not only respondent 2 but also respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957 apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could 5 have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that 'here is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of delay and laches in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 held as under:- ‘17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remain unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons -who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle” . In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold. 10. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be 6 ignored without any justification. Remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have an impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation, which, in an acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons; such delay does not deserve any indulgence, and on the said ground alone this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition at the very threshold. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter, statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace. There must be a lifespan during which a person must approach the court for their remedy. Otherwise, there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the parties. 11. Having considered the facts of the present case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra) and Chennai Metropolitan (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of 12 years. The petitioner utterly failed to explain the delay caused in filing the instant petition. In opinion of this Court no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant