sdSSSW" HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 264 of 2009 ' : Hariram Naik S/o Anand Singh Naik, aged about 64 years, occupation Retired Pastwari in P.h. No. 42, R/o village Baramkela, Tahsil and District Raigarh, C.G. (Petifioner) Resoondents VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. The Collector, District Raigarh C.G. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Sarangarh, District Raigarh C.G. Memo of under Section 2(1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act. 2006 Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appeltant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, tearned Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents. JUDGMENT (12th Juiy, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 2) Appellant Hariram Naik has filed this intra Court appeal against the impugned order dated 25-06-2009, passed in W.P.(S) I^^ No. 6341/2006, whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 3) The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition forthe following reliefs: "7.1 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to cal! for the entire records, pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 7.2 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, whereby directing the respondent authorities concerned to pay the amount of family pension to the petitioner, which was deducted from his monthly salary. 7.3 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, whereby the respondent authorities be directed to provide the difference amount, which the petitioner is entitled for after promotion and also provide pension, which he is entitled for after the order of promotion from the date of completion of 12 years; 24 years and 30 years of service. 7.4 Any other relief, which thte Hon'ble Court be deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances ofthis case be also granted in favour ofthe petitioner." 4) The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking grant of Kramonnati after completion of his service of 12 years in the year 1978; 24 years in the year1990;and 36 years in the year 2002. 5) Learned Single Judge considering the inordinate delay by the petitioner in fiting the writ petition seeking Kramonnati, which according to him fell due in the year 1978 and 1990, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. ^,f % <, ^ vtepg?, 1; a -•- ';;|; fi A Y J' £ ^. *»<•" ^'W---S' ;3^!;' 6) Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the fact that the petitioner's similarly situated persons were granted Kramonnati in the year 2002 and that the petitioner's application submitted by him in the year 2005 was dismissed by the respondents in the year 2006. 7) Be that as it may, the fact remains that from the first Kramonnati, which according to the petitioner fell due in the year 1978, the writ petition was filed after about 28 years with no explanation for the inordinate delay of 28 years. Similarly, second Kramonnati, according to the petitioner himself fell due in the year 1990 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2006 i.e. after 16 years. It is also important to note that the writ petition came to be filed after the retirement of the petitioner in the year 2002. 8) In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the ground ofdelay and laches. 9) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed. -to-costS__ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu ^^e^^^^i BBw.iU.iittWi^fr'iimtniWtmifiit.s'BS)wsi»s^»»ww»si»MasiSvWiS^^S SWS^!^^i^^^SS^s^S-^!X