2025:CGHC:55637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12914 of 2025 Vinod Kumar S/o Pokla Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post- Korudha, Police Station Kusmi (Samri), District Surguja (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

4 - The Commandant, 3rd Batttalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Amleshwar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

5 - Assistant Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Amleshwar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

14.11.2025

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the application of petitioner for Digitally signed by ANGARE Date:

2025.11.20 +0530 reinstatement in service and quashing of punishment order, has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Constable in 3^rd Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Amleshwar and vide order dated 31.05.2008 his services have been terminated. He would further submit that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 and vide order dated 09.04.2009 the same has been rejected thereafter he has filed mercy petition before respondent No. 2 which has also been rejected on 12.04.2010. Thereafter, he has preferred successive representations which have also been rejected on 06.01.2011, 07.01.2020, 24.02.2022 and lastly on 13.06.2023. He would further submit that even after lapse of 15 years of order passed by the authority before this Court as he has made various representations which have been rejected on various dates as stated above, therefore, it is continuous cause of action, as such the writ petition can be very well entertained by this Court and would pray for admission of the writ petition.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the submissions which has been reflected from the record contending that termination order was passed on 31.05.2008 and thereafter the appellate orders were passed on 09.04.2009 and 12.04.2010. The mercy appeal was also rejected, thereafter he has made successive representations which cannot condone the delay of 15 years from the date of termination of service by the respondent on 31.05.2008 and would pray for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner was terminated on 31.05.2008, thereafter appeal was rejected on 09.04.2009 and mercy appeal was also rejected on 12.04.2010, thereafter he has made successive representations which does not condone the delay in preferring the writ petition as there is no time prescribed for filing writ petition but it should be expeditiously preferred whereas in the present case petitioner has filed this petition after lapse of 15 years of passing of the impugned order and also considering the position of law that the successive representations do not extend any period of limitation, as such, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the count of delay and latches and accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

Bhumika