1 CGHC010345932026 2026:CGHC:39293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6585 of 2026 1 - Bhuneshwar Satnami S/o Shri Kalap Singh Satnami, Aged About 54 Years R/o H. No. 17, Ward No. 30, Kailash Nagar, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Upper Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director, Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block - 2, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Collector, District - Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 08/09/2026 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.09.09 10:41:44 +0530 2 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the office of respondents with respect to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from 26.02.2014 (actual due date), by giving due effect to the letter dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Respondent No. 4, and to grant all consequential service benefits arising therefrom, including appropriate fixation of seniority and other monetary benefits, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and allow the applications/representations preferred by the petitioner (Annexure P/6) in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the interest of Justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Food Inspector in District Raipur pursuant to the appointment order dated 17.12.2007. Learned counsel submits that on 26.02.2014, the State Government issued a letter regarding implementation of reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities, referring to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 3 Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and adopted a policy for providing such reservation in promotion in the State. Thereafter, a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted on 06.01.2017 for promotion from Food Inspector to Assistant Food Officer, in which the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 22. Pursuant to the said process, the petitioner joined the post of Assistant Food Officer on 29.12.2017. Subsequently, a provisional rank list of Assistant Food Officers as on 01.04.2025 was prepared, and by letter dated 28.03.2025 concerning regularization of temporary Assistant Food Officers, the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner submitted several applications/representations before the respondent authorities requesting that his case be considered in accordance with the policy decision contained in the letter dated 26/02/2014 issued by the respondent No.4. Learned counsel further submits that while undertaking the promotion process, the respondent authorities failed to consider and implement the reservation policy contained in the letter dated 26/02/2014, in respect of the persons with disabilities. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions and submits that the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage, thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of 4 delay and laches. 4. Upon perusal of the petition, it is evident that the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) was convened in the year 2017. If there was any anomaly or irregularity in the proceedings of the D.P.C. or in the promotion orders, the same should be challenged within a period of six months. However, the present writ petition has been filed only on 25.08.2026. No sufficient or satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition. 5. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be 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 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, 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 5 obligations of the parties. 6. It is the well established principles of law that delay has always been considered vital in service matters especially with regard to promotion. As far back as (1975) 1 SCC 152, P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion under Article 226 that the Court should not entertain claims regarding seniority after an approximate period of 6 months from the date of cause of action to prevent clogging the dockets of the Court and which would impede the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances timely. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep