^ \^Q IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT APPEAL N0.........^^..../2007 APPELLANT ..<y. .<^ 7 ^SS ^®¥-Y ^\^" ^ ^~yy RESPONDENTS ^:1. 3. -S^S^ .^^•i ^•^- ^'^INS^ ^.o.' ^,0^ 4. Smt. Kamlesh, aged about Slyears, W/o. Late Shn' Laxman Singh, Occupation Assistant Teacher, Mata Rukmani Sewa Sansthan, Kanya Aashram, Mutanpal, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe & Backward Classes Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Tribal Department, District - Bastar (C.G.) Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, District Bastar (C.G.) Secretary, Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE 157 flO) fal(2^ OF CHAPTER XI OF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES.rf995)-, ^C^y -^ '^ ^ ^ ^ ' 2> '^> HIGHGOURTOFCHHATTISOAR^^ Division Bench Coram : Hon'bte Shri H.L. Datto, CJ & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J WRIT_APPEAL_N©^2AOJF_20©Z APPELLANT Ku. Kamiesh Versus BgSPONDgliTS State of Chhattisgarh and ottiers. Present: Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri B.D. Badgalyan, counsel for th@ petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addt- AiivoGate Oenerat for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for other respondents, QRALOBDgR (Passed on 28th February, 2007) The foitowing oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, C.J. Appeliant before us was appointed as Assistant Teacher/Upper Division Teacher in aided instituilon. There i?a revision ofpayscalesometjmeSnthey©ar1995.Since the benefit of revision of pay scale was not given to the petitioner, she had approached this Court by fitsng a petition sometime in the year 2006. Learned single Judge had rejected the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petjtioner in approaching thfs Court mereSy after 11 years from the dlate of notification issued by the Centrat Government. 2) Ttie discretionary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be extended to a person who slept over her right. There is n© exptanation much less reasonabte explanatson by tie petltsoner in approaching this Court for implementation of the benefit of the notification mereiy after 11 years from ttie date of issi^nce of the notjficatson, 3) In our opinson, the delay in fiting the petstion by the peAitioner- Ss fatal to the proceedings. Therefor®,the learned singte Jucige had rightly rejected the writ petition, We do not aee any error In the orders passed by the Searned singie Judge which wouid cati for interference by us. Accordsngly the writ appeai is rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge