Dismissed¶47

Towaram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC29 Jul 2025WPS/1886/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 1886 of 2021; decided 30.07.2025 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; delay and laches; stale claim; writ dismissed at threshold; Article 226; gradation list; confirmation date 15.04.2008 vs 10.04.2008; regularization dated 10.04.2008; promotion Assistant Grade IV to Assistant Grade III; seniority; P.S. Sadasivaswamy (1975) 1 SCC 152; Manoj Kumar Jindal (2023) 19 SCC 533; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The petition was filed about six years after the petitioner became eligible for promotion (particularly from the date of promotion of respondent No.4) without any satisfactory explanation for the delay; a court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons, and on the ground of delay and laches alone the petition deserved to be dismissed at the very threshold. ¶42

Towaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed on 22.02.2021 after a delay of about six years from the petitioner becoming eligible for promotion in 2015, should be entertained despite the delay and laches. +1 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

¶42

Key takeaways

Considering the facts and circumstances in light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra) and Manoj Kumar Jindal (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner approached this Court after a delay of about 6 years and utterly failed to explain the delay caused in filing the instant petition.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPS No. 1886 of 2021) by a Class-IV peon seeking (i) rectification of his date of confirmation — erroneously recorded as 15.04.2008 in the tentative gradation list as on 01.05.2015, the correct date being 10.04.2008, when his services along with those of respondent No.4 were regularized — and (ii) consideration for promotion from Assistant Grade IV to Assistant Grade III. Dismissed at the threshold solely on delay and laches: filed on 22.02.2021, about six years after the petitioner became eligible for promotion in 2015 (particularly from the date of promotion of respondent No.4), with no satisfactory explanation, despite representations dated 08.07.2013, 05.01.2016 and 12.12.2018. Relying on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 and Manoj Kumar Jindal v. Rajni Mahajan, (2023) 19 SCC 533, the Court held that indolent litigants whose delay is unexplained do not deserve indulgence. No order as to costs.

2025:CGHC:37253

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1886 of 2021

¶6

Towaram Sahu S/o Shri Panchram Sahu, Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Peon At Office Of Project Administrator Integrated Tribal Development Project, Nagri District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. R/o In Higher Secondary School Compound, Nagari, Ward No. 07, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Development, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Bhupeshwar Kumar Sahu Presently Posted As Assistant Grade- Iii At Office of Additional Commissioner Tribal Development Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.4	: Mr. Raj Shegale, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

30.07.2025

¶17

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶18

¶19

“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Dhamtari to consider the candidature of petitioner to be promoted in the post of Assistant Grade III from Assistant Grade IV.

¶20

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondent Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Dhamtari to rectify the confirmation date of the petitioner from 15.04.2008 to 10.04.2008.

¶21

10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice. ”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were initially appointed as daily wage employees on class IV posts in the year 1995. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.04.2008, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Dhamtari, the services of the petitioner and the private respondent were regularized and revised pay scale was sanctioned accordingly. It is submitted that the petitioner’s date of birth is 14.04.1964, whereas the private respondent’s date of birth is 23.04.1973. The date of regularisation of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is 10.04.2008.

¶23

Learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the final gradation list dated 01.04.2011 for Class-IV employees, wherein the petitioner is placed at serial no. 70 and respondent no. 4 is placed at serial

¶24

¶25

No. 69. It is also submitted that in the tentative gradation list dated 01.04.2014, the petitioner and respondent no. 4 were placed at serial nos. 65 and 64, respectively, but in the tentative gradation list as on 01.05.2015, the petitioner’s date of confirmation was erroneously recorded as 15.04.2008, whereas the correct date is 10.04.2008; and the date of confirmation of respondent no. 4 has been correctly shown as 10.04.2008. She would also submit that despite repeated representations dated 05.01.2016 and 12.12.2018, and earlier correspondence dated 08.07.2013, the petitioner’s grievance has not been redressed, and no corrective action has been taken by the authorities; thus, she would pray that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to correct the petitioner’s date of confirmation in the relevant gradation list and also to reconsider his case for promotion from due date.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that there is an inordinate delay of six years from the date when the alleged error in the gradation list was first noticed. It is submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the promotion of respondent No.4 at the appropriate time and kept mum till filing this writ petition. It is also submitted that entertaining such a stale claim after a long gap would amount to unsettling long-established seniority and promotions, and therefore, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such cases.

¶27

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶29

From a perusal of the documents placed on the record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Class-IV employee in the year 1995 and became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade III from the year 2015, particularly from the date of promotion of respondent No.4. However, the instant petition has been filed on 22.02.2021; thus, the petitioner has approached this Court after six years without offering any satisfactory explanation for the delay.

¶30

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State

¶31

of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 , while dealing with a similar issue in para 2, held as under:-

¶32

“2. ………………...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,

¶33

¶34

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 forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.”

¶35

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Jindal

¶36

vs. Rajni Mahajan and Others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 533 , in para 5 held as under:-

¶37

“5. We are not finally opining on the issue as to whether the DPC should have been postponed or not; the ACRs only up to the year the vacancy arose should have been considered or it should be up to the date of holding of DPC. the fact remains that Respondent 1 was promoted way back in the year 2007. More than 15 years have elapsed. She was otherwise also senior to the appellant in the cadre of Lecturers and there may have been further promotions of both the parties as well as in the department where they are working.

¶38

¶39

Any order passed at this stage may affect number of persons and further may result in unsettling many positions which have already settled with the lapse of time. Hence, we do not find that a case is made for interference by this Court.”

¶40

It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to

¶41

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 an impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation, which, in an acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality.

¶42

10. 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 obligations of the parties.

¶43

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra) and Manoj Kumar Jindal (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of about 6 years, without explaining satisfactory reasons of such a delay. The petitioner

¶44

¶45

utterly failed to explain the delay caused in filing the instant petition.

¶46

12. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant petition.

¶47

13. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as

¶48

to cost(s).

¶49

Sd/-

¶50