IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 942 of 2024 JAGDISH CHANDRA RATHORE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Daya Nath Pandey - Advocate for appellant appeared through video conferencing.

Shri Rahul Sethi - Additional Advocate General for respondent/States.

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vinay Saraf The instant Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 03.04.2024 passed in WP No.6451 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order of termination dated 08.03.2002 passed by the Divisional Commandant, Ujjain Division.

2. Heard Shri Daya Nath Pandey on the question of admission.

3. The short facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Home Guard Sainik since 13.04.1991 and was terminated by order dated 08.03.2002. Said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.423 of

2012 before the Principal Bench seeking the direction to the department to call him again and for regularisation of the services. Said petition was withdrawn by the appellant by order dated 09.02.2024 and no liberty was sought by the appellant to prefer a fresh petition on the same ground.

4. Thereafter, the subject petition was preferred which was dismissed by the learned single Bench on the ground of delay and latches.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the earlier counsel by mistake withdrawn the petition preferred by the appellant bearing W.P. No.423 of 2012 without seeking any liberty. The appellant is a class IV employee and has been terminated in 2002 and since then he is fighting for his rights. He further submits that the liberal approach is required in the matter and the appellant be permitted to get the result of the litigation on merits. He further submits that the appellant preferred another petition W.P. No.7112 of 2020 which was decided in Lok Adalat by order dated 12.03.2022 whereby the liberty was granted to the appellant to submit the representation and in furtherance of the liberty, the representation was submitted by the appellant but the same was rejected by the department on the ground that the original petition is still pending. He further submits that neither the representation was decided on merits nor the earlier petition was decided on merits, and therefore, the learned Judge has committed an error in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and latches.

6. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in declining to entertain the petition preferred by the appellant assailing the order of termination dated 08.03.2002 after a period of 22 years. When the appellant was aggrieved by the said order, the same could have been challenged in the WP No.423 of 2012 in clear words and the said petition was also withdrawn without any liberty. He cannot be permitted to agitate the matter again and again. Considering the same, no interference is required in the instant intra court appeal.

7. Resultantly, the admission is declined. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE m/-