Dismissed

Sohan Lal and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jun 2024WPS/3300/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-consequent promotion and seniority of army personnel. The Court held that the petition suffered from inordinate delay of six years and relied on Supreme Court precedent that extraordinary writ powers should not be exercised for stale claims to unsettle settled matters. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sohan Lal and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3300 of 2014

¶5

Sohan Lal S/o Shri Rai Singh Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 3rd Battalion Amleshwar Distt. Durg. C.G.

¶6

Javed Ahmed Ansari S/o Shri Gulzar Ahmed Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Forces Counter Terrorism And Jungle Warfare Kanker Distt. Kanker C.G.

¶7

Abhinav Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Iwari Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 4th Battalion Mana Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶8

Bishelal Sahu S/o Late Shri Umendra Singh Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Forces 3rd Battalion Amleshwar Distt. Durg. C.G.

¶9

Alok Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri M.L. Tiwari Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Special Task Force Baghera Distt. Durg. C.G.

¶10

Dinesh Singh S/o Late Shri Ramagre Singh Chhatri Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 4th Battalion Mana Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶11

Prashant Kumar Mukherjee S/o Late Shri Manoj Kumar Mukharjee Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Naxal Project Branch Police Head Quarterraipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Pramod Singh Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 8th Battalion Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶13

Manoj Kumar Rajput S/o Shri Bhukau Ram Rajput Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Pts Mana Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶14

Girish Kori S/o Shri Kishorilal Kori Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force, 5th Battalion Jagdalpur Distt. Jagdalpur C.G.

¶15

Jailal Markam S/o Shri Mayaram Markam Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 18th Battaliion Koria Distt. Koria C.G.

¶16

Bhuneshwar Singh S/o Shri Mangal Ram Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 2nd Battalion Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

¶17

Hori Lal Dhruw S/o Late Shri Vishram Singh Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 4th Battalion Mana Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶18

¶19

Anukampel Prabhat Salem Toppo S/o Shri Vishram Toppo Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 12th Battalion Ramanujganj C.G.

¶20

Govind Ram S/o Shri Bodha Ram Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 10th Battalion Surajpur C.G.

¶21

Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri K.N. Sharma Aged About 47 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 4th Battalion Mana Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶22

Pankaj Awasthi S/o Shri B.B. Awasthi Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force 4th Battalion Mana Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶23

---- Petitioners

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Secretary Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶26

The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur C.G.

¶27

The Additional Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Police Head Quarters Raipur Distt. Riapur C.G.

¶28

Shri Mahulal Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Through The Additional Director General Of Police Director General Of Police C.G. Armed Forces Police Head Quarters Raipur Distt Raipur C.G.

¶29

Shri Emanual Lakra Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Through The Additional Director General Of Police Director General Of Police C.G. Armed Forces Police Head Quarters Raipur Distt Raipur C.G.

¶30

Shri Hiralal Sidar Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Through The Additional Director General Of Police Director General Of Police C.G. Armed Forces Police Head Quarters Raipur Distt Raipur C.G.

¶31

Shri Johar Ram Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Through The Additional Director General Of Police Director General Of Police C.G. Armed Forces Police Head Quarters Raipur Distt Raipur C.G.

¶32

Shri Dharamdayal Toppo Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Through The Additional Director General Of Police Director General Of Police C.G. Armed Forces Police Head Quarters Raipur Distt Raipur C.G.

¶33

Shri Tyofil Tigga Presently Posted As Company Commander C.G. Armed Force Through The Additional Director General Of Police Director General Of Police C.G. Armed Forces Police Head Quarters Raipur Distt Raipur C.G.

¶34

¶35

---- Respondents

¶36

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶37

For Petitioners : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate along with Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶38

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶39

12.06.2024

¶40

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer(s):-

¶41

“(10.1) It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 21.02.2014.

¶42

(10.2) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioners the benefit of promotion and seniority on the post of Company Commander with effect from 10.02.2008, the day the juniors to the petitioners were promoted on the said post, with consequential benefits.

¶43

(10.3) Any other relief/relief’s which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioner.””

¶44

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners were directly appointed to the post of Platoon Commander under the respondents in the year 2000. The services of the petitioners were governed by the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Post (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2001. Subsequently, the said Rules, 2001 were repealed and the Rules, 2006 were promulgated, which were notified and published in the official gazette on 01.09.2006, wherein the minimum eligibility was reduced to 3 years. The juniors of the petitioners were promoted to the post of Company Commanders on 10.02.2008. On 16.10.2008, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation before the respondent authorities for redressal of their

¶45

¶46

grievances. Later on, the petitioners were also promoted to the post of Company Commanders vide order dated 02.02.2009, thereafter, the petitioners again submitted the representations before the respondent authorities on 21.02.2014 praying for the grant of seniority with effect from 10.02.2008 and again on 15.04.2014, the petitioners preferred reminder representations, but no action has been taken by respondent authorities in this regard and, thereafter, the instant petition has preferred on 14.07.2014 questioning the same.

¶47

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that junior employees to the petitioners were promoted and superseded by the petitioners. He would further argue that though the representations were made before the respondent authorities, no heed was paid. It is also argued that the candidature of the petitioners was not considered, even though the petitioners had completed 3 years of service as Platoon Commander, which was the basic minimum eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Company Commander in view of the provision contained in subsequent Rules, 2006. It is also submitted that the petitioners were discriminated, thus, prayer has been made to grant the benefit of promotion and seniority to the petitioners with effect from 10.02.2008 i.e. the date on which the juniors to the petitioners were promoted.

¶48

4. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned State counsel would submit that this petition suffers from delay and laches. He would further submit that some of the Platoon Commanders were promoted to the post of Company Commanders on 10.02.2008 whereas the instant petition was preferred on 14.07.2014, after the lapse of six years and without explaining the delay in filing the same. He would also submit that the order granting promotion dated 10.02.2008 to some of the Platoon Commanders (juniors to the petitioners) has not been challenged by the petitioners. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. S Sadasivaswamy

¶49

¶50

Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SCC 2271, in support of his submissions.

¶51

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

¶52

6. Admittedly, the petitioners and the other Platoon Commanders, who were promoted to the post of Company Commander, were appointed in the year 2000. The feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Company Commander is Platoon Commander and the minimum requirement is 3 years of service on the feeder cadre as per the provisions of Rules, 2006. The Petitioners and other Platoon Commanders had three years of experience, but the respondent authorities promoted other Platoon Commanders and the petitioners were not promoted for the reasons best known to the authorities. The order of promotion was passed by the authorities on 10.02.2008 and subsequently, the petitioners were also promoted to the post of Company Commander on 02.02.2009. It is stated by the petitioners that various representations were made to the authorities for the redressal of their grievances, but no action was taken on that representation. The instant petition was filed by the petitioners on 14.07.2014 i.e. after the lapse of more than six years and in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that there is no delay in filing the present petition whereas there is an inordinate delay of about six years in approaching this Court.

¶53

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the delay and laches in the matter of P. S. Sadashiva Swami (supra) in paragraph 2 has held that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. The relevant paragraph of the report states as under:-

¶54

“2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the 2nd respondent who was junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as

¶55

¶56

Divisional Engineer in 1957 by relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of service necessary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. The learned Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the writ petition was of the view that the relaxation of the rules in favour of the 2nd respondent without considering the appellant's case was arbitrary. In view of the statement on behalf of the Government that such relaxation was given only in the case of overseas scholars, which statement was not controverted, it is not possible to agree with the view of the learned Judge,. Be that as it may, if the appellant was aggrieved by it he should have approached the Court even in the year 1957 after the two representations made by him had failed to produce any result. One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. There is the further fact that even after respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as Divisional Engineers over the head of the appellant he did not come to the Court questioning it. There was a third opportunity for him to have come to the Court when respondents 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending Engineers over the head of the appellant. After fourteen long years because of the tempting prospect of the Chief Engineership he has come to the Court. In effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. It is very difficult for the Government to consider whether any relaxation of the rules should have been made in favour of the appellant in the year 1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957 cannot be reproduced now. In any case as the Government had decided as a matter of policy, as they were entitled to do, not to relax the rules in favour of any except overseas scholars t will be wholly pointless to direct them to consider the appellants' case as if nothing had happened after 1957. Not only respondent 2 but also respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957 apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that 'here is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put for- ward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters - The petitioner's petition should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.

¶57

8. Admittedly, the petitioners did not approach this Court within a

¶58

¶59

reasonable time and making representations before the concerned authority would not give any cause of action.

¶60

9. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore-discussed case, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

¶61

10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶62

Sd /-

¶63

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶64

Judge

¶65

amita

Sohan Lal and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sohan Lal and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjani Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Anil Jain Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Omprakash Dansena Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Avinash Singh Thakur Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Ishwari Prasad Shyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Satish Kumar Dubey Vs State Bank Of India