1 CGHC010280162018 2026:CGHC:36761 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5935 of 2018 Ashesh Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Shiv Ram Shrivastava Aged About 54 Years Resisent of E-2/4, High Court Colony, Chakarbhatha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Working As Deputy Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Chhattisgrah. ... Petitioner versus 1 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri R. S. N. Raju S/o Shri R. Chitti Raju Working As Deputy Registrares, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri Himanshu Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Prabhat Kumar Sinha Working As Deputy Registrars, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shri M.V.L.N. Subrahmaniam S/o Shri M. V. Kameswar Rao Working As Deputy Registrares, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilapur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shri Kumar Animesh S/o Late Shri Jgda Nand Prasad Working As Deputy Registrares, High Court of Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No.3 to 6 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 “10.1 That, the records pertaining to the promotion of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 to 6to the post of Deputy Registrar may be called for, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.2 That, the impugned order dated 25.07.2018, 14.05.2018 passed by respondent number 2 may kindly be set aside/quashed and the respondent may be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from 21.03.2013 along with all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, the impugned promotion order dated 10.12.2013 may be set aside to the extent of promotion granted to petitioner on the post of Deputy Registrar from the date of assuming duty after 10.12.2013 and further grant him promotion with affect from 21.03.2013 and seniority over and above respondent number 3 to 6 on the post of Deputy Registrar. 10.4 That, the petitioner may also be granted all the subsequent and consequential benefits arising out of the promotion and seniority granted to him with effect from 21.03.2013 on the post of Deputy Registrar. 10.5 Any other relief which this honourable court may deem just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Translator in the year 1997, and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Section Officer, in the year 2001. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar vide order dated 04.08.2011. The private respondents, who were juniors to the petitioner, were promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar vide order dated 04.02.2013. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, DRT) at Jabalpur vide order dated 02.07.2011 to the post of Recovery Officer. He was relieved for parent department from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur vide order 3 dated 15.03.2013. The services of private respondents were confirmed on the post of Assistant Registrar vide order dated 21.03.2013 & on same date they were promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar but the case of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner was informed vide memo dated 05.06.2013 with regard to adverse entries into his Annual Confidential Report (for short, ACR) by the DRT for the year 2011-12. 3. The services of the petitioner were later confirmed on the post of Assistant Registrar vide order dated 10.12.2013, and he was also granted promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from the date of assumption of duties. In the seniority list, issued on 01.09.2016, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 12, below the private respondents. The petitioner submitted various representations claiming retrospective promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from 21.03.2013 with all consequential benefits, but his representations were rejected vide orders dated 14.05.2018 and 25.07.2018. 4. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2011–12 was never communicated to the petitioner by the DRT. He would further contend that the respondent authorities should have taken the preceding five years' ACRs of the petitioner into consideration for promotion. He would also submit that the petitioner continuously made representations to the respondent authorities claiming retrospective promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted, and upon rejection of his representations vide order dated 14.05.2018/25.07.2018, this petition was promptly preferred; hence, the petition is within limitation. He would contend that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar prior to the private respondent; therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have considered this aspect while 4 deciding the confirmation and seniority of the private respondents. He would pray that the writ petition be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2026. They would further submit that the petitioner has claimed promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from 21.03.2013, whereas this writ petition was filed on 31.08.2018. They would contend that the petitioner has failed to properly explain the inordinate delay. They would also contend that seniority and promotions settled in the year 2013–14 should not be unsettled at the belated stage, and the claim of the petitioner is hit by the principle of delay and laches; thus, the petition filed by this petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that there is no inordinate delay in filing the petition. Further, the promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar was delayed and no reasons were ever assigned by the respondent no. 1 and 2 for such denial. Eventually, it was the decision of the promotion committee which finally rejected the representation of the petitioner, denying him promotion from anterior date. 8. From perusal of the orders dated 14.05.2018 and 25.07.2018 would reveal that the representations preferred by the petitioner on 26.04.2018 and 15.06.2018 were rejected on the ground of being highly belated. It is well settled that the period of delay is required to be computed from the date on which the original cause of action arose, and not from the date of rejection of a belated representation. 5 9. In the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 15 and 16: “15. When a belated representation in regard to a `stale' or `dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the `dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A Court or Tribunal, before directing `consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a `live' issue or whether it is with reference to a `dead' or `stale' issue. If it is with reference to a `dead' or `state' issue or dispute, the court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct 'consideration' without itself examining of the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect. ” 10. From bare reading of the above quoted judgment, it is apparent that the a decision on a belated representation concerning a stale or time- barred dispute does not create a fresh cause of action or revive the original claim, and limitation must be determined from the date of the original cause of action, irrespective of any court direction to consider the representation. 6 11. It is also a well-settled principle of law that claims for retrospective promotion and consequential benefits after retirement ought not to be entertained if brought belatedly. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal and ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512), has held that after retirement, the promotion cannot be granted from a retrospective date and further, the notional benefits cannot be extended after retirement. It is also held that settled seniority should not be disrupted after a long lapse of time. 12. In the present case, the petitioner has already retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation. Granting any relief at the belated stage would unsettle the settled rights of the private respondent. The law regarding delay and laches is well established. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orrisa & ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471, has held that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. The relevant para-30 is reproduced as under:- “30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal (supra), this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.” 14. In the present case, the petitioner sought promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar from the date when his juniors were promoted. Juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar vide 7 order dated 21.03.2013, whereas he was promoted to the said post vide order dated 10.12.2013. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition on 31.08.2018, after more than 5 years. 15. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, the settled principles with regard to delay & laches, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner regarding retrospective promotion was raised after an inordinate delay of more than five years. Further, the subsequent rejection of his belated representations did not give rise to a fresh cause of action or revive the stale claim. 16. The petitioner has already retired from services after attaining the age of superannuation; thus, granting relief at this stage would disturb the settled rights and seniority of the private respondents. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out, and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim