1 2026:CGHC:14595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5544 of 2021  Jairam Verma S/o Late Dharam Verma, Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted And Working As Teacher (Local Body), Government Middle School Bisahutola, Block Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office and Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 6. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 7. Block Education Officer, Block Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 8. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block Chhuria, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 5 & 8 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.30 18:18:57 +0530 2 27.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to grant the benefit of promotion to the petitioner with effect from 2006 as the same benefit has been granted to the similarly situated Shiksha Karmis. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to pay the Arrears/Difference of pay of the promotional post with effect from 2006.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III on 14.10.1998. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 03.07.2002. He would contend that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II vide order dated 08.08.2017, whereas, similarly situated teachers, appointed in the year 1998, were promoted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II with effect from 2006 vide order dated 24.02.2018. He would submit that WPS No. 5723 of 2018 was filed and a direction was issued to decide the representation. The respondent No. 5/Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 11.01.2021 rejected the representation moved by the petitioner on the ground that the services of the petitioner have already been absorbed with the School Education Department pursuant to policy decision dated 30.06.2018. 3. Mr. Rajendra Patel would submit that the petitioner has been discriminated as similarly situated teachers were promoted to the Shiksha Karmi Grade II vide order dated 24.02.2018 with effect from the year 2006. He would pray 3 for a direction to the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II with effect from the date when his colleagues were promoted. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Singh appearing for respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner has claimed promotion with effect from year 2006, whereas, this petition was filed in the year 2021. It is also contended that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure P/8), whereby, representation of the petitioner has been rejected. They would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. The petitioner has claimed promotion with effect from year 2006, whereas, this petition was filed in the year 2021. In earlier round of litigation, the petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation and the representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.01.2021 by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon and said order has not been challenged. 7. 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 4 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 “acknowledgement of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action.” 8. 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, 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.” 9. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming promotion with effect from the year 2006, and the order dated 11.01.2021 has not been challenged. 5 Therefore, in my opinion, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds, first, the petitioner has failed to explain the inordinate delay caused in filing instant petition, and second, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 11.01.2021, whereby, representation made by him was rejected. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant