Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Vyas Chand Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 5199 of 2022
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Seniority
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in 1989. Despite claiming entitlement to promotions in 2011 and 2013, he was promoted in 2017. He alleged discrimination due to non-consideration of his name for unreserved category vacancies during the earlier periods. A representation made by him was rejected in 2022, leading to the filing of the present writ petition after a substantial delay.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner knowingly delayed asserting his rights by waiting until 2022 to challenge his non-promotion dating back to 2013. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that service-related claims involving seniority and promotion affecting third parties must be brought within a reasonable time.
Issues: Whether the petition is maintainable despite the significant delay in seeking remedy for promotion claims dating back to 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: Service-related claims involving promotion and seniority that affect the interests of third parties are subject to the doctrine of delay and laches; a petitioner cannot be permitted to approach the court after a long delay without a justifiable cause as it undermines the stability of service rights and creates uncertainty.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prateek Sharma
For the Respondents: Keshav Prasad Gupta
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for promotion and the state's plea of delay and laches. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. application of the doctrine of delay and laches in seniority and promotion service matters. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. dismissal of the petition due to failure to justify the delay in approaching the court. (Para 10) |
Order on Board
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the impugned order dated 27.01.22 (ANNEXURE P/1)
and further be pleased to direct the respondents for granting
promotion to the petitioner from 12.12.2013, in the post of
State Finance Service, with all consequential benefits and
seniority, in the interest of Justice.
10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III in Revenue Department in the year 1989. Subsequently the petitioner completed Subordinate Accounts Service examination in the year 2004. After completion of 05 years of services, he became eligible for promotion to the next higher post. It is pleaded that juniors to the petitioner were promoted in the year 2011 and 2013 and the Departmental Promotion Committee considered names of candidates belonging to reserved category. The petitioner was granted increment and time bound pay scale by the Departmental Promotion Committee after completion of 10 years of services. Vide order dated 03.03.2017, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Class-II post under Chhattisgarh State Finance Services. It is further pleaded that though the petitioner was entitled for promotion in the year 2011 and 2013, but his name was considered in the year 2017. The petitioner came to know that his name was not considered in absence of vacancy for candidates belonging to unreserved category.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner inquired from the department and came to know that 388 posts were lying vancant to the department for unreserved category and deliberately name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the year 2011 and 2013. He would contend that the respondent authorities acted discriminatory and arbitrary. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner from 12.12.2013 when his juniors were promoted. It is also argued that the petitioner made representation before the respondents which was rejected vide order dated 27.01.2022 and against said order, this petition has been preferred.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has claimed promotion from 12.12.2013 and has filed this petition on 26.07.2022. He would submit that the order of promotion was issued in favour of the candidates belonging to reserved category on 12.12.2013 and that was the reason, the name of the petitioner was not considered. He would contend that the petitioner was extended benefit of time bound pay scale by the Departmental Promotion Committee. He would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is hit by delay and laches. He would contend that the policy of reservation in promotion in the State of Chhattisgarh was a subject matter of consideration in WP PIL No. 91/2019 and Rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 was declared unconstitutional. He would contend that, that was the reason and on said ground, the representation of the petitioner was rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
6. In the year 2013, promotion was granted to the candidates belonging to reserved category. Admittedly, the petitioner is member of unreserved category, therefore, his name was not considered. The petitioner w
