The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Radheshyam on 4 December, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35616




                                                              1                              WA-859-2025
                             IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                           &
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                                 WRIT APPEAL No. 859 of 2025
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                                                       Versus
                                                    RADHESHYAM
                          Appearance:
                                   Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Dy. Advocate General for the appellants /
                          State.
                                   Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

                                                                  ORDER

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

The present inter-Court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.21630 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the

respondent / writ petitioner has been allowed and also aggrieved by the dismissal of the review petition.

2. I.A. No.2610 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant / State. The appeal is barred by 411 days. The reason for such a huge delay has been given in para's 3, 4 & 5 of the application, which are reproduced below:

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35616

2 WA-859-2025 "3 . That, after gaining knowledge of the order passed in the Writ petition No. 21630/2023 dated 07.11.2023 an Opinion has been sought from the Government Advocate to file a Review Petition in the aforesaid matter vide letter dated 20.11.2023. Consequently, an Opinion dated 21.11.2023 was furnished by the Government Advocate stating that Review Petition should be preferred in the matter and immediately the same was forwarded to the Higher Authorities for necessary instructions and permission to file Review Petition in the matter. Thereafter, OIC contacted the A.G. Office Indore and filed the R.P. No. 1352/2023 on 08.12.2023, which was disposed off by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 and stated that no case is made out for reviewing the order.

4. That, thereafter, again the Department/Officer In-charge of the case contacted the Advocate General Office, Indore alongwith the entire record of the case and opinion was sought to file a Writ Appeal in the matter. Thereafter appeal was dictated and prepared and the appellants are filing the present Writ Appeal.

5. It is most humbly submitted that the delay of 411 day has been caused due to official formalities and procedure and same is bonafide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice and there is no willful and deliberate delay in filing this Writ Appeal."

3. The aforesaid explanation for delay clearly demonstrates the

lackadaisical attitude of the appellants / State. It is stated that the file was moved from one office to another either seeking opinion or taking decision for filing an appeal. In a recent judgment in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no leniency has to be given to the State Government and they had to be treated as an ordinary litigant. In para 255 of the said judgment, it is held that a litigant either private party or State, if comes for condoning the gross delay of 11 years, the delay cannot be condoned unless he has satisfied the delay sufficiently. In para 258, 259 & 262, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered in detail that the huge unexplained delay cannot be condoned by adopting a liberal attitude. In para 264, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that no litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35616

3 WA-859-2025 process of law.

4. Thus, the delay has not been explained by the State except that the time had taken to file writ appeal because of the red tapism which cannot be a ground of condoning such a huge delay, therefore, I.A. No.2610/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay is dismissed. However, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, it is apt to mention the astonishing facts of this case which are as under:

4.1. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that vide order dated 01.08.2009, on a recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 29.01.2019, 587 Teachers / Head Masters were promoted to the post of Lectures, Higher Secondary School. The name of the writ petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. According to the writ petitioner, in the seniority list issued on 30.08.1996, his name is at serial No.96 but his juniors were promoted to the post of Lectures. The writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.28094 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed of with direction to decide the pending representation within a period of two months. When the aforesaid order has not been complied with, writ petitioner has filed Contempt Petition No.418 of 2021. In said Contempt Petition, the promotion order dated 15.07.2022 was produced, whereby writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 17.09.2008 with notional pay fixation without salary. The promotion order was issued by the then Commissioner, Public Education but no posting was assigned to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner waited almost a year and when no posting

order was issued, he filed writ petition before this Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35616

4 WA-859-2025 4.2. Government Advocate was directed to seek instruction for which also the Government took two months time but no order was issued. Vide order dated 12.10.2023, the Government was directed to produce the posting order on or before 20.10.2023 failing which the Commissioner, Directorate of Public Instructions shall remain present before this Court. On 20.10.2023 also, no order was produced, therefore, the Commissioner was directed to remain present on 25.10.2023 at 10.30 A.M. before this Court. It was also observed that if the Commissioner, Public Instruction cannot pass posting order since 2002 then he / she has no right to continue on the said post and finally on 25.10.2023, the Government Advocate produced the posting order of the writ petitioner dated 20.10.2023, whereby he has been posted at Government Excellence Higher Secondary School as Lecturer. This Court directed the Commissioner to explain as to why there was delay in issuing the posting order.

5. The learned Single Judge has called personal appearance of the Commissioner, Public Instructions and an enquiry was directed by the Commissioner, Public Instructions and in the said enquiry it was found that on account of negligence of certain officers i.e. present and the then District Education Officer, Agar Malwa, Assistant Director, Public Instructions, Superintendent, Assistant Grade-1, the claim of the writ petitioner was not paid. The learned Single Judge held that the present case is a glaring example of harassment of Government employee by the department. The writ petitioner was a teacher and was posted in a remote area and he was compelled to approach the Court on 3 occasions to get promotion and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35616

5 WA-859-2025 posting. Even in compliance to the order, the Commissioner had issued a promotion order, but intentionally did not mention the place of posting.

6. The learned Single Judge further held that it is a case where the petitioner was ready to work on promotional post but he was denied promotion without any valid justification. He was found eligible for promotion w.e.f. 17.09.2009, therefore, the learned Single Judge directed to pay the entire arrears of salary for the post of Lecturer and if he is eligible, he

will also be entitled for 1st and 2 nd Krammonnati, Time Pay Scale. The writ petition was allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- considering the conduct of the officials.

7. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge is fully justified hence, no interference is called for in the present inter-Court appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE JUDGE Divyansh