ORDER :

Heard.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief (s):-

10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the grievance/representation of the petitioner and extend the benefit of promotion/kramonatti with all other monetary benefits, short spun of time as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.

10.2 That, any other relief, which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of this application is filed herewith.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2005 and was posted at Govt. Girls Middle School Charcha, Dist.-Korea (C.G.). Thereafter, he was transferred to Govt. Sadar Primary School Janjgir, Dist.-Janjgir-Champa (C. G.) in the year 2015. The petitioner has not been granted the benefits of promotion/kramonnati till date.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the service condition of the petitioner would be governed by the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) Samvarg (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013. He would further submit that after completion of seven years of service on the post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was eligible to be promoted but his name was not considered by the respondent authorities. Mr. Shukla would further submit the limited grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to decide the pending representation dated 01.01.2018 within the stipulated time.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that though the petitioner was eligible for promotion in the year 2012, this petition was filed in the year 2018 and the delay has not been explained properly by the petitioner. She would lastly submit that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

6. As per the pleading, the petitioner joined the services in the year 2005 and was entitled to be promoted in the year 2012, but he waited for long 6 years to approach this Court. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that there is no delay in filing the present petition.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held as under:

‘17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remain unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that 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 -who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle” . In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.

8. Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 64 held as under:-

‘9. The