BHUNESHWAR SATNAMI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010345932026 2026:CGHC:39293
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6585 of 2026
1 - Bhuneshwar Satnami S/o Shri Kalap Singh Satnami, Aged About
54 Years R/o H. No. 17, Ward No. 30, Kailash Nagar, District -
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Food, Civil
Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Upper Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection,
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Digitally signed by
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Date: 2026.09.09
10:41:44 +0530
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Director, Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer
Protection, Block - 2, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).
4 - Additional Secretary, General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Collector, District - Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
08/09/2026

2
1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records from the office of
respondents with respect to the case of the petitioner.
10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant
promotion to the petitioner with effect from
26.02.2014 (actual due date), by giving due effect to
the letter dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P/2) issued by
the Respondent No. 4, and to grant all consequential
service benefits arising therefrom, including
appropriate fixation of seniority and other monetary
benefits, in accordance with law, in the interest of
justice.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to consider and
allow the applications/representations preferred by
the petitioner (Annexure P/6) in accordance with law,
in the interest of justice.
10.4 That, any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit to grant in the interest of Justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was appointed as a Food Inspector in District Raipur
pursuant to the appointment order dated 17.12.2007. Learned
counsel submits that on 26.02.2014, the State Government
issued a letter regarding implementation of reservation in
promotion for persons with disabilities, referring to Section 33
of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,

3
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and
adopted a policy for providing such reservation in promotion in
the State. Thereafter, a Departmental Promotion Committee
was constituted on 06.01.2017 for promotion from Food
Inspector to Assistant Food Officer, in which the petitioner’s
name appeared at Serial No. 22. Pursuant to the said process,
the petitioner joined the post of Assistant Food Officer on
29.12.2017. Subsequently, a provisional rank list of Assistant
Food Officers as on 01.04.2025 was prepared, and by letter
dated 28.03.2025 concerning regularization of temporary
Assistant Food Officers, the petitioner’s name appeared at
Serial No. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner submitted several applications/representations
before the respondent authorities requesting that his case be
considered in accordance with the policy decision contained in
the letter dated 26/02/2014 issued by the respondent No.4.
Learned counsel further submits that while undertaking the
promotion process, the respondent authorities failed to
consider and implement the reservation policy contained in the
letter dated 26/02/2014, in respect of the persons with
disabilities.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would oppose the submissions and submits that
the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage,
thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of

4
delay and laches.
4.
Upon perusal of the petition, it is evident that the Departmental
Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) was convened in the year 2017.
If there was any anomaly or irregularity in the proceedings of
the D.P.C. or in the promotion orders, the same should be
challenged within a period of six months. However, the present
writ petition has been filed only on 25.08.2026. No sufficient or
satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for
the inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition.
5. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether such enormous
delay is to be ignored without any justification. Remaining
innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause
of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to
affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened
rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which
in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to
have attained finality. A court is not expected to give
indulgence to such indolent persons, such delay does not
deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone this
Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition at the very
threshold. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter
statutes of limitation are considered to be statutes of repose
and statutes of peace. There must be a lifespan during which a
person must approach the court for their remedy. Otherwise,
there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and

5
obligations of the parties.
6. It is the well established principles of law that delay has always
been considered vital in service matters especially with regard
to promotion. As far back as (1975) 1 SCC 152, P.S.
Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that it
would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion under Article
226 that the Court should not entertain claims regarding
seniority after an approximate period of 6 months from the date
of cause of action to prevent clogging the dockets of the Court
and which would impede the work of the Court in considering
legitimate grievances timely.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Amardeep