[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Durgawati Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17340-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 304 of 2026
Smt. Durgawati Yadav W/o Rameshwar Parasad Yadav Aged About 63
Years Retired Assistant Teacher, Tularam Arya Girls Middle School
Durg, Presently Residing At House No. 9-C, Street No. 28, Sector 8
Bhilai, District- Durg (Cg)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
3. Joint Director Education Division Durg, District Durg (Cg)
4. District Education Officer Durg, District Durg (Cg)
5. Block Education Officer Durg, District Durg (Cg)
6. The Principal Tularam Arya Girls Middle School Durg, District-
Digitally
Durg (Cg)
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
...Respondent(s)
2026.04.17
14:28:19
+0530
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : None.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional
Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.04.2026
1. None appears, nor is any representation made on behalf of the
appellant to press this appeal when the case is called out.
2. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the State, is present.
3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant assailing the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPS No. 13432 of 2025 (Smt. Durgawati Yadav vs.
State of Chhattisgarhf & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant/writ petitioner herein has been disposed off.
4. The appellant has also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026, seeking
condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal.
5. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is evident
that the appellant has failed to furnish a day-to-day explanation for the
inordinate delay of 55 days in filing the writ appeal. In absence of a
satisfactory explanation, the appeal is barred by limitation and suffers
from delay and laches, and therefore, is not liable to be entertained.
6. 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
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
writ petition."
7. 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
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."
8. In the light of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above-stated judgments (supra) and considering the
grounds raised in I.A. No. 1 of 2026, we do not find any good ground to
condone the delay of 55 days in preferring the writ appeal.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is rejected and consequently
thereto, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
