Baburam Uchadiya vs The State Of Mp

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
1 WP-17885-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17885 of 2019
CNR No.: MPHC030201002019
BABURAM UCHADIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-
"i-The order impugned annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed.
ii- Respondents may kindly be directed to consider and
decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a
reasoned order.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be
granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Office Assistant Grade-III in the respondent company
on 29.01.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted as Office Assistant Grade-II
vide order dated 15.04.1998, Office Assistant Grade-I vide order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
2 WP-17885-2019
06.01.2000, and Section Officer vide order dated 02.12.2011. Subsequently,

the petitioner retired from service.
3. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s juniors, namely, Jay
Ram Ahirwar and Ram Dayal Mehar, were appointed on 21.01.1983 and
31.01.1983, respectively. In the seniority list as on 01.04.1989, the petitioner
was placed at serial No.766, whereas Jay Ram Ahirwar and Ram Dayal
Mehar were placed at serial Nos.767 and 768, respectively.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that Jay Ram Ahirwar was
promoted as Office Assistant Grade-II on 03.02.1992 and Ram Dayal Mehar
on 13.02.1991, whereas the petitioner was promoted to the said post only on
15.04.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Office Assistant
Grade-I on 06.01.2000, while Jay Ram Ahirwar and Ram Dayal Mehar were
promoted to the said post on 04.02.2000 and 11.10.2000, respectively. The
petitioner was promoted as Section Officer on 02.12.2011, whereas his
juniors had already been promoted to the said post on 06.07.2007 and
08.06.2007, respectively.
5. It was also submitted that Jay Ram Ahirwar and Ram Dayal Mehar
were subsequently promoted as Account Officers vide orders dated
27.09.2012 and 08.10.2012, respectively. However, the petitioner was not
promoted to the post of Account Officer till the filing of the present petition
in 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as per the
instructions dated 23.09.2016, filed as Annexure-C to the rejoinder, the
respondents failed to assign the petitioner his proper place in the seniority
list, resulting in the denial of promotion to him while his juniors were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
3 WP-17885-2019
promoted.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Office Assistant Grade-III on 17.05.1983
at Sehore Circle Office, Bhopal. In 1985, he was transferred in the same
capacity to the Circle Office, Morena, and was subsequently posted at
Mehgaon, considering that his hometown was Bhind.
7. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that,
vide order dated 03.06.1989, the Bhopal and Gwalior regions were
separated, and separate regional establishments were constituted. Due to this
bifurcation, the employees continued at their respective places of posting, but
their administrative control was changed. Consequently, the petitioner came
under the Gwalior region, whereas Jay Ram Ahirwar and Ram Dayal Mehar
came under the Bhopal region when the promotions were made.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the
regional bifurcation was undertaken due to administrative exigencies, and
there was no requirement to obtain the consent of the employees. After
publication of the region-wise seniority lists, the petitioner was given an
opportunity to raise objections but did not do so at the relevant time.
9. It was also submitted that, after 03.06.1989, promotions were made
on the basis of the respective region-wise seniority lists. The petitioner was
included in the seniority list of the Gwalior region, whereas Jay Ram
Ahirwar and Ram Dayal Mehar were included in the seniority list of the
Bhopal region. Following the Regional Selection Committee meeting dated
31.08.1991, the petitioner continued under the Gwalior region from 1985
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
4 WP-17885-2019
until his retirement. The seniority list for the Gwalior region for the year

1991-1992 was duly published, but the petitioner neither raised any objection
nor challenged it at the relevant time. On the contrary, he subsequently
availed himself of three promotions under the said seniority arrangement
without questioning the region-wise seniority.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner did not raise any objection regarding his seniority or promotion
after the regional bifurcation in 1989 and filed the present petition for the
first time on 26.08.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Upon perusal of material available on record reveals that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Office Assistant Grade-III on 17.05.1983
at the Sehore Circle Office, Bhopal. In 1985, he was transferred in the same
capacity to the Circle Office, Morena, and was subsequently posted at
Mehgaon, considering that his hometown was Bhind.
13. Vide order dated 03.06.1989, the Bhopal and Gwalior regions
were separated and separate regional establishments were constituted. Due to
this bifurcation, the employees continued at their respective places of
posting, but their administrative control was changed. Consequently, the
petitioner came under the Gwalior region, whereas Jay Ram Ahirwar and
Ram Dayal Mehar came under the Bhopal region at the time of their
promotions.
14. The regional bifurcation was undertaken due to administrative
exigencies, and there was no requirement to obtain the consent of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
5 WP-17885-2019
employees. After publication of the region-wise seniority lists, the petitioner

was given an opportunity to raise objections; however, he did not raise any
objection at the relevant time.
15. After the bifurcation dated 03.06.1989, promotions were made on
the basis of the respective region-wise seniority lists. The petitioner was
included in the seniority list of the Gwalior region, whereas Jay Ram
Ahirwar and Ram Dayal Mehar were included in the seniority list of the
Bhopal region. Following the meeting of the Regional Selection Committee
dated 31.08.1991, the petitioner continued under the Gwalior region from
1985 until his retirement.
16. The seniority list of the Gwalior region for the year 1991-1992 was
duly published. However, the petitioner neither raised any objection to the
said seniority list nor challenged it at the relevant time. On the contrary, he
subsequently availed himself of three promotions under the same seniority
arrangement without questioning the region-wise seniority.
17. The petitioner did not raise any objection regarding his seniority or
promotion after the regional bifurcation in 1989 and approached this Court
for the first time by filing the present petition on 26.08.2019.
18. The law with respect to delay and laches is settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in large number of cases. No benefit can be extended to the
sleeping litigant.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr.
vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 has opined as under:-
“54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a
petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
6 WP-17885-2019
in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to
know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as
the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and
laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and
claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some
diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable
time.”

20. A Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. (M/s) vs
Government of India, (DB) reported in I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53 relying upon
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
“10. Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion
that appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct
disentitles it to any relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council
v. Pan Singh and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1365 the Supreme
Court has held that delay and laches are relevant factors for
exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In Municipal Council,
Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the
Supreme Court has observed that discretionary relief can be
provided to one who has not by his act or conduct given a
go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an
indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana v. Aravali Khanij
Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held that where third
party rights are created, the High Court should not interfere.
Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it has been
held that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not
encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third
parties crystallizes in the interregnum.”
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn.
Ltd. vs K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as follows:
6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne
in mind by the High Court when they exercise their
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke
its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or
omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as
taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other
circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
7 WP-17885-2019
where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within
the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v.
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185 :
AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of course, the discretion has to be
exercised judicially and reasonably.

7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd [(1874) 5
PC 221 : 22 WR 492] (PC at p. 239) was approved by this
Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [AIR 1967 SC
1450] and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor
Service [(1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] . Sir Barnes
had stated:


“Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of
equity is not an arbitrary or a technical
doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust
to give a remedy either because the party has,
by his conduct done that which might fairly
be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or
where by his conduct and neglect he has
though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet
put the other party in a situation in which it
would not be reasonable to place him if the
remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in
either of these cases, lapse of time and delay
are most material. But in every case, if an
argument against relief, which otherwise
would be just, is founded upon mere delay,
that delay of course not amounting to a bar
by any statute of limitation, the validity of
that defence must be tried upon principles
substantially equitable. Two circumstances
always important in such cases are, the
length of the delay and the nature of the acts
done during the interval which might affect
either party and cause a balance of justice or
injustice in taking the one course or the other,
so far as it relates to the remedy.”
22. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ashok Kumar vs District Magistrate, Basti reported in (2012) 3 SCC 311
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33032
8 WP-17885-2019
that :-

“10. … It is time and again, stated that a party who has slept
over his right since is not entitled to the discretionary relief
of the High Court."
23. Considering the aforesaid, as the present petition has been filed
after an inordinate delay of approximately thirty years and the delay has not
been satisfactorily explained, no case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM