Chattisgarh High Court
Shivani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:11940-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 173 of 2025
1 - Shivani W/o Sumit Kumar Nair Aged About 42 Years Occupation Staff
Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur,
R/o C/o Nalini Bhausagar, Qt. No. 15/a, Street-1, Sector-4, Bhilai, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Khemin D/o Narottam Lal Aged About 36 Years Occupation Staff Nurse,
Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, R/o 14,
Street-3, Block-6, Sector-5, Ward No. 44, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Nidhi Rajput W/o Vikram Singh Rajput Aged About 36 Years Occupation
Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital,
Raipur, R/o H.No. 881/7, Panchsheel Nagar, Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And
Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Directorate, Medical Education, North Block, Sector - 19, Health
Building, Second Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Ashunta Minj D/o Tarcius Minj Aged About 37 Years Occupation Staff
Digitally
signed by
Nurse, Presently Posted At Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, Medical College, Raipur,
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
R/o Qt. No. 12/b, Street-14, Sector-1, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2
4 - Geetanjali Thakur D/o Yadram Thakur Aged About 33 Years Occupation
Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital,
Raipur, R/o Latabod, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Manisha Jameson W/o K.B. Jameson Aged About 36 Years Occupation
Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital,
Kachndur, Durg, District Durg, C.G., --- R/o Plot No. 22/b, Radhika Nagar,
Maitri Vihar, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Geetanjali D/o Indraman Aged About 34 Years Occupation Staff Nurse,
Presently Posted At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, R/o Qt.
No. 17/b, Street - 33, Sector-10, Bhilai, Civic Center, Bhilai, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
7 - Linny Marshal W/o Marshal Swami Aged About 34 Years Occupation
Staff Nurse, Presently Posted At Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital,
Kachndur, Durg, District Durg, C.G., --- R/o Plot No. 93, Ayappa Nagar,
Near Shiva College, Ward No. 7, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
11/03/2025
1. Heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay
of 15 days in preferring the appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No. 1
of 2025 stands allowed and delay of 15 days in filing the present
appeal stands condoned.
2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants against the
order dated 04.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS
No. 7852 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners
has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ
petition as well as the writ appeal are that the petitioners/appellants
are working on the post of Staff Nurse. The date of joining of
appellants are 02.01.2013. Earlier the respondent authorities issued
letter dated 23.07.2020 inviting objection against the provisional
gradation list against which the appellant (Shivani) submitted her
objection on 24.07.2020. Thereafter another objection was preferred
by the appellant (Shivani) on 10.02.2021, however respondent No. 2
never decided her objection. The respondent department published
the provisional gradation list on 28.08.2021 showing the status of
seniority as on 01.04.2021. The appellant (Khemin) immediately
submitted her objection against the provisional seniority list on
07.09.2021. Without deciding the objections of the petitioners, the
respondent No. 2 published the final seniority list on 31.01.2022.
Aggrieved by the illegal act of the respondent No. 2, the
petitioners preferred writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 6214/2023,
which was disposed of on 12.09.2023 directing the respondent No. 2
to decide the representation of petitioners in accordance with the
relevant rules. The respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of
the petitioners vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024 on the ground
that objection against the seniority list was not preferred within
limitation of 15 days from the publication of the provisional seniority
list. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 the
petitioners filed second writ petition bearing WPS No. 7852/2024
which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single bench on the ground of
delay and laches. While deciding the writ petition Hon'ble single
bench has given a finding at para No. 5 that petitioners have
admitted that they are aware of their erroneous position in the
gradation list since 2013, therefore, there is a delay in approaching
the Court.
It is necessary to produce the prayer made by the petitioners
inn the writ petition, which is as under :-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call for the
entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to
issued a writ/ or writs/ order/ or orders/ to set-aside
the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 (Ann. P-1),
issued by the Respondent No. 2.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to
issued a writ/ or writs/ order/ or orders/ to the
Respondent authorities to prepare fresh gradation list
after following the rules and regulation applicable in
the departments, in the ends of justice.
10.4 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit
and proper may also kindly be granted to the
petitioners, in the interest of justice."
After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches vide
order dated 04.12.2024, which is under challenge in the present
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners would submit that the
petitioner/appellant (Shivani) and petitioner (Khemin) is placed at
serial no. 611 and Serial no. 598 respectivelly in the gradation list
and the Staff Nurse Manisha Ramteke (S No. 549) and Tanuja Norke
(S No. 550), who have taken joining on the post of Staff Nurse after
the joining of petitioners has been placed higher in rank then the
petitioners. He submits that there was no delay in filing of objection
against the provisional seniority list published on 28.08.2021, the
petitioner have already moved representation but the respondent no.
2 was sitting over the matter. There was also no delay in approaching
the Hon'ble court, the cause of action arose only after the
representation of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated
23.07.2024. The Hon'ble court vide order dated 12.09.2023, passed
in WPS 6214/2023 had specifically directed the respondent No. 2 to
decide the representation in accordance with the relevant acts and
rules, however the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation on
the ground on non-filing of objection. The respondent No. 2 has not
decided the objection of the petitioners/appellants on merits and has
rejected the objection merely on technicalities. The rules governing
the field of seniority specifically states that seniority shall be
maintained from the date of joining of the employee and if there is
any mistake on the face of record the respondent No. 2 is bound to
correct the mistake. The petitioners filed the WPS No. 7852/2024 for
appropriate direction, which cannot be said to be suffered by delay
and laches, yet the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of delay and laches, which is erroneous and
the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed in the writ petition as well as writ appeal.
7. From perusal of the material produced in the writ petition as well as in
the writ appeal it is quite vivid that the petitioners claimed in the
present writ petition for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2024 ,
issued by the respondent No. 2 and also for a direction to the
respondent authorities to prepare fresh gradation list after following
the rules and regulation applicable in the departments. The
petitioners/appellants who are working on the post of Staff Nurse
joined the service on 02.01.2013. The respondent authorities issued
letter dated 23.07.2020 inviting objection against the provisional
gradation list. The appellants submitted their objections, however
respondent No.2 never decided their objection and respondent
department published the provisional gradation list on 28.08.2021
showing the status of seniority as on 01.04.2021. Without deciding
the objections of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 published the
final seniority list on 31.01.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred
WP(S) No. 6214/2023, which was disposed of on 12.09.2023
directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of
petitioners. The respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the
petitioners vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024 on the ground that
objection against the seniority list was not preferred within limitation
of 15 days from the publication of the provisional seniority list. Being
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 the petitioners
filed second writ petition bearing WPS No. 7852/2024, which was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Bench on the ground of delay and
laches.
8. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter
of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC
152 and Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others,
2023 Livelaw (SC) 883, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the petitioners holding that the petition suffers
from delay and laches and the reasons for delay has not been
satisfactorily explained, we are also concur with the reasoning
recorded by the learned Single Judge and do not find any sufficient
ground to interfere with the finding recorded in the impugned order
after adverting entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the learned Single
Judge has come to conclusion which is neither perverse or contrary
to the facts available in the record.
9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has
been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and
justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually
warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single
Judge while passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts
of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
