IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 13576 of 2021

GANGACHARANYADAV

Versus

MP EAST KHESTRA VITRAN CO LTD. AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Mr. Raj Shrivastava - Advocate appeared through VC for the

petitioner.

Mr. Anil Sharma - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER Appointment/Promotion Petitioner Respondent no.9 on the post of-

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for following relief:

"(i) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade-I w.e.f 1997 and Office Superintendent w.e.f. 2003 and the Account Officer w.e.f. 2008

with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That, the respondents be also directed to pay arrears of salary and grant all the monitory benefits and seniority from the date the

junior i.e.respondent no.9 has been promoted in the Department.

(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the be facts and

circumstances of the case may also be granted."

2. The petitioner has claimed aforesaid relief primarily on the ground that the

respondent no.9 was junior to him and yet he was given promotion on various posts ignoring his claim for promotion. In this regard, the service profile of petitioner and

respondent no.9 is as under :

Office Assistant Grade- 08.08.1984 (joined on 08.08.1984 (joined on III (Trainee) 08.08.1984) 06.09.1984)

Office Assistant Grade-

01.03.1985 Not available III Office Assistant Grade-II 18.06.1997 1991 Office Assistant Grade-I -- 1997 Office Superintendent -- 2003 Accounts Officer -- 2008

3. It is thus seen that the petitioner and respondent no.9 were appointed on the post of Office Assistant Grade-III as trainee on the same date and further in the seniority list as on 0.04.1990 issued on 19.01.1993, (Annexure P/4) the petitioner was at serial no.181 while respondent no.9 was at serial no.182. However, the respondent no.9 was thereafter given promotion on the post of Office Assistant Grade-II in the year 1991 while the petitioner was promoted on the said post on 18.06.1997. The respondent no.9 was thereafter given regular promotions as detailed above.

4. The petitioner was thus superseded by respondent no.9 in the year 1991 itself when he was promoted to the post of Office Assistant Grade-II. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever agitated his supersession by respondent no.9 except in the present writ petition which was filed on 26.07.2021.

5. The respondents have raised a specific objection with regard to delay and laches on the part of petitioner in claiming promotion on various posts with effect from 1997, 2003 & 2008. The objection since goes to the root of the matter, needs to be considered first.

6. The Apex Court considered the effect of delay in claiming the promotion vis-a-vis another incumbent in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of T.N.

reported in (1975)1 SCC 152. The Court held in para 2 as under:

“2. …. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there 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 extraordinary 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. 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 Hig