1 2026:CGHC:15219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1246 of 2021 1 - R.S. Rajput S/o Late S.S. Rajput, Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted And Working As Labour Inspector In The Office Of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Ashok Chaurasiya, Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Labour Officer, Incharge Labour Officer, Bijapur, District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri R.K. Tamhane, Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Labour Officer, Office Of Labour Commissioner, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri K.K. Singh, Presently Posted And Working As Labour Officer, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Kingjor Kerketta, Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Labour Officer, Office Of Labour Commissioner, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Siddhidatri Kashi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr.Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate holding the 2 brief of Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 02.04.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner as well as the entire records pertaining to grant of adhoc promotion to the private respondent no. 3 to 6 in the year 2012 for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order thereby setting aside the order dated 22.06.2012 and 09.07.2012 (Annexure P/4) by which the private respondent no. 3 to 6 have been granted adhoc promotion and further be pleased to set aside the recommendation of the DPC dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure P/5) by which the adhoc promotion has been regularized. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion as per his entitlement particularly from the year 2012 and be pleased to direct the state to grant all consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petitioner.” 2) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Labour Inspector and he joined services on 09.08.1989. In the department, there were total 18 posts of Assistant Labour Officer. 6 posts were reserved for direct recruitment and 18 posts were reserved for promotion. In the year 2012, the department filled 4 posts from promotion and 8 posts were lying vacant for service candidates. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that his name was placed at serial No.9 in the gradation list of the year 2012 but the private respondents, who were at serial No.10,15,18 & 19 in the gradation list, were 3 considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Officer. The petitioner has challenged the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 17.04.2013 and further direction has been sought for to consider the name of the petitioner for grant of promotion. 3) Ms. Kashi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that juniors to the petitioner were considered for promotion and the petitioner was singled out without sufficient cause. She would further submit that no departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner at relevant time and the respondents have not assigned sufficient reasons for non- consideration of his name. She would contend that the petition may be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kashi. They would submit that the petitioner has claimed promotion from year 2012 and has filed this petition on 07.02.2021. They would further submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hit by principle of delay and laches. It is also contended that the private respondents were promoted way back in the year 2013 and it would not be proper to resettle the order of promotion after 12-13 years. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 6) A perusal of the writ petition would show that the petitioner has claimed promotion on the post of Assistant Labour Officer from 2013. The private respondents were promoted to the post of Assistant Labour Officer in the year 2013. The petitioner remained in a state of slumber for 8-9 years and thereafter filed this petition in the year 2021. 4 7) The repeated representations made before the respondent-authorities would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. 8) The Supreme Court in the matter of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115 in para 11 held as under :- “11. When a decision is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgment of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action.” 9) The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 652 summarized the settled principles in the following manner:- “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, 5 if the issue relates to payment or re fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion,etc.., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on account of delay and laches. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha