[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Pramod Nahak vs South Eastern Coal Field Limited on 1 April, 2026

                                1




                                               2026:CGHC:14965
                                                            NAFR
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     WPS No. 3052 of 2021

 Pramod Nahak S/o Late Prafull Nahak Aged About 26 Years R/o
  Ward No. 15, West Negal Gate, Near Kaliya Provision Store,
  Charcha Colliery Post Office Charcha Colliery District Koria
  Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                                    ... Petitioner(s)

                             versus

1. South Eastern Coal Field Limited Through Its Chairman Cum
   Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Field Limited,
   Headquarters, Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur
   Chhattisgarh.,   District    :     Bilaspur,   Chhattisgarh

2. General Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited Headquarters,
   Seepat Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District :
   Bilaspur,                                          Chhattisgarh

3. Director Personnel, South Eastern Coal Field Limited,
   Headquarters, Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur
   Chhattisgarh.,   District :     Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. General Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Chirmiri Area
   District Koria Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
   Chhattisgarh

5. Area Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coal Field Limited,
   Chirmiri Area, District Koria Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
   (Baikunthpur),                                     Chhattisgarh

6. Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Sub Area
   Bartunga Colliery, Chirmiri Area, District Koria Chhattisgarh.,
   District   :       Koriya      (Baikunthpur),     Chhattisgarh

7. Assistant Manager (Hr /p) South Eastern Coal Field Limited,
   Underground Sub Area, Chirmiri, Area, Chirmiri, District Koria
   Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                                  ... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board 1.4.2026

1. By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 25.3.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 7 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the name of the petitioner for grant of compassionate, in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father,

namely, Prafull Nahak who was working on the post of General

Mazdoor, Category-I under the respondents died in harness on

8.11.1999 and petitioner moved the application for grant of

dependent employment on 23.12.2016 which was rejected by

respondent No. 7 vide order dated 25.3.2018 on the ground that

application was moved after period of 17 years. He further submits

that at the time of death of petitioner's father, petitioner was aged

5 years 7 months and 3 days and he moved application for grant

of dependent employment immediately after attaining majority. He

contends that authority concerned has rejected the application

moved by petitioner without assigning sufficient reasons. He prays

to set aside the order impugned.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

submits that application was moved by petitioner after 17 years.

He further submits that at the time of death of petitioner's father,

petitioner had not attained the age of 12 years, therefore his name

was not kept in live roster and that was the reason, his application

was rejected. He contends that this petition has been filed in the

year 2021 whereas petitioner's father died in year 1999, therefore

this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and

latches.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

5. Petitioner's father who was working under respondents died in

harness on 8.11.1999 and on the date of demise, petitioner was

aged 5 years 7 months and 3 days, therefore his name was not

kept in live roster and that was the reason, application moved by

petitioner was rejected. Be that as it may, application was moved

by petitioner for grant of dependent employment after 16 years i.e.

on 23.12.2016 and this petition has been filed in year 2021.

6. In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms.

Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held at

paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under :

"7.Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother.

Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The

. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471

judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable."

The very object of providing compassionate appointment

is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time

and same has been achieved as the family has already

survived for such a long period. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India has ruled that compassionate appointment is a

way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who

have experienced sudden hardship.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of J&K Versus

Sajad Ahmed Mir2, while dealing with the issue of delay, in para

11 held as under:-

"11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal

. (2006) 5 SCC 766

rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue of delay and

laches in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and

Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu 3 held as

under:-

'17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remain unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that 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 -who compete with "Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip Van Winkle"

. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.

9. Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of Rushibhai

Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation 4

held as under:-

. (2014) 4 SCC 108

. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 64

'9. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace, though some contrary opinions have been expressed (in Nav Rattanmal Vs. state of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1704). The courts have expressed the view that the law of limitation rests on the foundations of greater public interest for three reasons, namely, (a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them; (b) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disapprove a stale claim; and (iii) that persons with good causes of action (who are able to enforce them) should pursue them with reasonable diligence (State of Kerala Vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty, (1999) 3 SCC 657 relying on Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 28, para 605; Halsbury's Laws of England , Vol. 68 (2021) para 1005. Equally, change in de facto position or character, creation of third party rights over a period of time, waiver, acquiesce, and need to ensure certitude in dealings, are equitable public policy considerations why period of limitation is prescribed by law. Law of limitation does not apply to writ petitions, albeit the discretion vested with a constitutional court is exercised with caution as delay and laches principle is applied with the aim to secure the quiet of the community, suppress fraud and perjury, quicken diligence, and prevent oppression.(see Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510).Therefore, some decisions and judgments do not look upon pleas of delay and laches with favour, especially and rightly in cases where the persons suffer from adeptness, or incapacity to approach the courts for relief.

However, other decisions, while accepting the rules of limitation as well as delay and laches, have observed that such rules are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but serve a larger public interest and are founded on public policy. 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 obligations of the parties. (See N. Blarkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998)7 SCC 123. Referring to the principle of delay and laches, this Court, way back in Moons Mils Ltd Vs. M.R. Mehar, President, Industrial

Court, Bombay AIR 1967 SC 1450, had referred to the view expressed by Sir Barnes Peacock in The Lindsay Petroleum Company and Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewell, and John Kemp, (L.R.) 5 P.C.221 in the following words:

" 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 this 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 limitations, 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 relates to the remedy."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bichitrananda

Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others5, under relevant para 21

held as under:-

"21. Profitably, we may reproduce relevant passagesfrom certain decisions of this Court:

(A) Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648:

"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 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

. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883

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 refixation 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 writ petition." (emphasis supplied) (B) Union of India v N Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25 "Delay, laches and acquiescence

20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species.

Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle

governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court.

Laches

21. The word "laches" is derived from the French language meaning "remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.

22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.

23. A defence of laches can only be allowed when there is no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a person seeking a remedy is one of fact and so also that of prejudice. The said principle may not have any application when the existence of fraud is pleaded and proved by the other side. To determine the difference between the concept of laches and acquiescence is that, in a case involving mere laches, the principle of estoppel would apply to all the defences that are available to a party. Therefore, a defendant can succeed on the various grounds raised by the plaintiff, while an issue concerned alone would be amenable to acquiescence.

Acquiescence

24. We have already discussed the relationship between acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other.

25. Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-case basis." (emphasis supplied) (C) Chairman, State Bank of India v M J James, (2022) 2 SCC 301:

"36. What is a reasonable time is not to be put in a straitjacket formula or judicially codified in the form of days, etc. as it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. A right not exercised for a long time is nonexistent. Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit the litigants who approach the court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay. In the present case, challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, which is certainly highly belated and beyond justifiable time. Without

satisfactory explanation justifying the delay, it is difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred within a reasonable time. Pertinently, the challenge was primarily on the ground that the respondent was not allowed to be represented by a representative of his choice. The respondent knew that even if he were to succeed on this ground, as has happened in the writ proceedings, fresh inquiry would not be prohibited as finality is not attached unless there is a legal or statutory bar, an aspect which has been also noticed in the impugned judgment. This is highlighted to show the prejudice caused to the appellants by the delayed challenge. We would, subsequently, examine the question of acquiescence and its judicial effect in the context of the present case.

Xxx

38. In Ram Chand v. Union of India [Ram Chand v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44] and State of U.P. v. Manohar [State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126] this Court observed that if the statutory authority has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, it cannot justify the same by taking the plea that the person who has been deprived of his rights has not approached the appropriate forum for relief. If a statutory authority does not pass any orders and thereby fails to comply with the statutory mandate within reasonable time, they normally should not be permitted to take the defence of laches and delay. If at all, in such cases, the delay furnishes a cause of action, which in some cases as elucidated in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765] may be continuing cause of action.The State being a virtuous litigant should meet the genuine claims and not deny them for want of action on their part. However, this general principle would not apply when, on consideration of the facts, the court concludes that the respondent had abandoned his rights, which may be either express or implied from his conduct. Abandonment implies intentional

act to acknowledge, as has been held in para 6 of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409 : 1979 SCC (Tax) 144] Applying this principle of acquiescence to the precept of delay and laches, this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v.Jaswant Singh [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] after referring to several judgments, has accepted the following elucidation in Halsbury's Laws of England : (Jaswant Singh case [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] , SCC pp. 470-71, paras 1213) "12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England, Para 911,p. 395 as follows:

In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are:

(i) acquiescence on the claimant's part;and

(ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part.

Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress,but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.'

13. In view of the statement of law as summarised above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the

occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussions on the financial management of the Nigam. Why should the court come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence?"

39. Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify distinction between "acquiescence" and "delay and laches". Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. [See Prabhakar v. Sericulture Deptt., (2015) 15 SCC 1 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 149.

Also, see Gobinda Ramanuj Das Mohanta v. Ram Charan Das, 1925 SCC OnLine Cal 30 :

AIR 1925 Cal 1107] In literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent, concurrence, or acceptance, [See Vidyavathi Kapoor Trust v. CIT, 1991 SCC OnLine Kar 331 : (1992) 194 ITR 584] which denotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention. [See Krishan Dev v. Ram Piari, 1964 SCC OnLine HP 5 : AIR 1964 HP 34] Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right to set aside

the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and in spite of the infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance. [See "Introduction", U.N. Mitra, Tagore Law Lectures -- Law of Limitation and Prescription, Vol. I, 14th Edn., 2016.] However, acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence.

40. Laches unlike limitation is flexible.

However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches. Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay. Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. [See Vidyavathi Kapoor Trust v. CIT, 1991 SCC OnLine Kar 331 :

(1992) 194 ITR 584] Given the aforesaid legal position, inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal. Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation."

11. 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. 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 obligations of the parties.