1 CGHC010282622026 2026:CGHC:36162-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 733 of 2026 Pramod Upadhyay S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Upadhyay Aged About 73 Years Retired Assistant Revenue Inspector/ Asst. Grade III Under Municipal Corporation Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Second Floor Old Police Head Quarter Premises, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.17 10:28:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6261/2021 (Pramod Upadhyay v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single Judge, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed under the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) on 16.01.1981 on the post of Conductor and was posted in Raigarh Division. After reorganisation of the State and formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the MPSRTC was decided to be dissolved in the State of Chhattisgarh pursuant to notifications dated 26.12.2002 and 27.12.2002. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner was accommodated in the Municipal 3 Corporation, Raigarh on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and joined there on 14.11.2005. His claim for absorption was, inter alia, based upon the alleged similar treatment extended to one Shri A.K. Dwivedi, whose services were stated to have been absorbed in the Department of Law and Legislature, State of Chhattisgarh. 4. It was further the case of the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.1769/2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2011, directing the respondent authorities to consider his case for absorption in accordance with the applicable rules and policy of the State Government. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, he had thereafter submitted a representation dated 13.04.2011, but the same was not decided by the authorities. In the meantime, he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.07.2011. Subsequently, the present writ petition came to be filed on 03.10.2021, seeking, inter alia, absorption in the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh along with consequential service and pensionary benefits. 5. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, noted that the appellant/writ petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2011, whereas the present writ petition was instituted after a considerable lapse of 4 time, i.e., on 03.10.2021. It was further noticed that despite the earlier order dated 01.04.2011 directing consideration of his representation, the appellant/writ petitioner did not take any effective steps for several years thereafter. The learned Single Judge also took note of the decision of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(S) No.3199/2024, wherein an identical claim had been dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2024, and consequently dismissed the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant/writ petitioner had been seeking absorption pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.1769/2011 and that his representation dated 13.04.2011 remained undecided. It is contended that the appellant/writ petitioner had been similarly situated to Shri A.K. Dwivedi, whose services were absorbed by the State Government, and, therefore, he was entitled to similar treatment. It is further submitted that the non-consideration of the representation by the respondent authorities constituted a continuing cause of action and, therefore, the writ petition could not have been dismissed merely on the ground of delay. Learned counsel accordingly prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and for appropriate relief to appellant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the 5 writ petition, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2011 and approached the Court after an unexplained delay of more than ten years. It is submitted that the earlier order dated 01.04.2011 merely directed consideration of the representation and did not confer any right of absorption upon the appellant/writ petitioner. It is further submitted that, after retirement, the prayer for absorption in service cannot be granted and, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case as well as the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6261/2021. 9. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present intra-Court appeal is whether, after the appellant/writ petitioner’s retirement from service on 31.07.2011, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain the claim for absorption in the Municipal Corporation, particularly when the present writ petition was filed on 03.10.2021, after a lapse of more than ten years. 10. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- 6 “7) In para 7 of the writ petition, it has been categorically stated that the petition has been filed within period of limitation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2011, whereas the present petition was filed on 3.10.2021. Earlier, a writ petition was filed which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner. Although, the petitioner made a representation but no decision was taken and thereafter, the petitioner did not approach any of the authorities or Court for redressal of his grievance. Since the petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2011, his claim for absorption practically cannot be considered after retirement. 8) In a similar writ petition seeking identical relief, namely WPS No.3199 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 21.6.2024. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. 10) Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.” 11. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.07.2011, whereas the present writ petition was filed only on 03.10.2021, after an unexplained lapse of more than ten years. The earlier order dated 01.04.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.1769/2011 merely 7 directed the competent authorities to consider the appellant’s case in accordance with the applicable rules and policy and did not confer any vested right of absorption upon him. 12. It is also not the case of the appellant that, after submitting the representation dated 13.04.2011, he took any effective steps for its consideration for several years. Mere pendency or non- consideration of a representation cannot, by itself, furnish a perpetual or recurring cause of action so as to revive a stale claim after an inordinate delay. More importantly, after the appellant’s retirement from service on 31.07.2011, the prayer for his absorption in service could not have been granted in the manner sought by him. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no error or infirmity in the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra-Court appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to entertain the claim, particularly having regard to the appellant’s retirement and the enormous delay in approaching this Court. 14. Consequently, the present intra-Court appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu