CHHATTISGARH BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION vs RAMAN JAISWAL

1

CGHC010359982025 2026:CGHC:38769-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 662 of 2025
Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through The Secretary,
Vivekanand Nagar Janta Colony Raipur C.G. 492001.(Respondent In
Writ Petition)
... Appellant(s)
versus
Raman Jaiswal S/o Shri Suresh Jaiswal Aged About 21 Years R/o
Village Adbhar, Tahsil Adbhar And District Janjgir Champa C.G. Pin
495695.(Petitioner In Writ Petition)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
.09.2026 02
1. Heard Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
Date:
2026.09.02
17:11:21
+0530
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

2
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant assailing the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPC No. 1958 of 2025 ( Raman Jaiswal vs.
Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education ), whereby the writ
petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner herein came to be
disposed of.
3. Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 2 of 2025 ,
seeking condonation of delay of 67 days in preferring the present writ
appeal.
4. We have considered the grounds stated in the application seeking
condonation of delay. The appellant has failed to place on record any
cogent, sufficient or satisfactory explanation accounting for the delay of
67 days in filing the present appeal. The application does not disclose
any circumstance sufficient to explain the delay for the entire period in
question. Mere assertion, without any convincing explanation supported
by the relevant facts and circumstances, cannot constitute sufficient
cause for condoning the delay.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India &
Others vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 652 summarized
the settled principles in the following manner:-
“ 7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related
claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and
laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ
petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an

3
application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the
exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a
continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is
based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted
even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with
reference to the date on which the continuing wrong
commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a
continuing source of injury. But there is an exception
to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any
order or administrative decision which related to or
affected several others also, and if the reopening of
the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties,
then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if
the issue relates to payment or re fixation of pay or
pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it
does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the
claim involved issues relating to seniority or
promotion,etc.., affecting others, delay would render
the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be
applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery
of arrears for a past period is concerned, the
principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will
apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict
the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to
a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the

4
writ petition. ”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of C. Jacob v. Director
of Geology and Mining and others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115 ,
having found that the employee suddenly brought up a challenge to the
order of termination of his services after 20 years and claimed all
consequential benefits, held that the relief sought for was inadmissible.
The legal position in this regard was laid out in the following terms:-
“ 10. Every representation of the Government for relief,
may not be applied on merits. Representations
relating to matters which have become stale or barred
by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone,
without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to
representations unrelated to the Department, the reply
may be only to inform that the matter did not concern
the Department or to inform the appropriate
Department. Representations with incomplete
particulars may be replied by seeking relevant
particulars. The replies to such representations,
cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale
or dead claim.
11. When a decision is issued by a court/tribunal to
consider or deal with the representation, usually the
directee (person directed) examines the matter on
merits,being under the impression that failure to do so
may amount to disobedience. When an order is
passed considering and rejecting the claim or
representation, in compliance with direction of the
court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the
stale claim, nor amount to some kind of
“acknowledgement of a jural relationship” to give rise

5
to a fresh cause of action.
12. When a government abandons service to take
alternative employment or to attend to personal
affairs, and does not bother to send any letter seeking
leave or letter of resignation or letter of voluntary
retirement, and the records do not show that he is
treated as being in service, he cannot after two
decades, represent that he should be taken back to
duty. Nor can such employee be treated as having
continued in service, thereby deeming the entire
period as qualifying service for the purpose of
pension. That will be a travesty of justice.
13. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents
himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and
demands that he should be taken back and
approaches the court, the department naturally will not
or may not have any record relating to the employee
at that distance of time. In such cases, when the
employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry
and the order of dismissal/removal, court cannot draw
an adverse inference against the employer for not
producing records, nor direct reinstatement with back
wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation of service
or the lucrative alternative employment of the
employee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters will
encourage discipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the
employee at fault and result in drain of public
exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of
mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of
a routine order for back wages. ”
7. The aforesaid principles make it clear that the question of delay
and laches has to be considered on the basis of the facts and

6
circumstances of each case and that the party seeking condonation
must disclose sufficient cause which prevented it from approaching the
Court within the prescribed period. In the present case, the explanation
furnished by the appellant does not constitute sufficient cause for
condoning the delay of 67 days. No material has been placed before us
which would persuade this Court to take a liberal view in favour of the
appellant.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature of the explanation furnished in I.A. No. 2 of 2025 , and the settled
principles of law governing condonation of delay, we are not satisfied
that the appellant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay
of 67 days in preferring the present writ appeal.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is rejected . Consequently, the writ
appeal, being barred by limitation, is dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan