i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA H AT BILASPU DISI0N EO HO JEE UPTA C HAT R I CAM OR r a ah Yada o arbhu a ed about 5 years /o illage — D Sp) P M haba (choolara ost anpur TaSII Mohla District Rajnandgao (CG) VUS ERS esponents tat. hhattisgarh troug ecretar chool ct epartmen DKS Bhawan Ralu peant iition ’ \ Rd Se cf C, hh Sy, ‘. S Eduaion Dt pr (CG) is Dtrict o ajnanga Ranandaon ( irector Ra ission ae‘e ani rim tion'isso ‘aipurCG) r01ect Director Raeev and Primar ucaion Mission Rdg D Rgn ( duc Dc ainanaon“ istrict ainandao CG) Eation istrit loc evelomen fficer anur ananaon CG rit ppeal uner ecion ( of e aisqar i ourt Aeal toDIVIsmn Bench Act 200 ri eet ae counse or e appelan Sh J Ptl l f th lt i hor Bhuri ditional Advocae ener or te State! resondent i- resen l t q GMEN 15 February 201 R VI BNH N BLE SHRI RAV é J HON’BLE SHRI PRASW KUMA MSHRA J Writ Appeal No.34 aff 2010 Rm Nt v S/ P Rm ag 4 R V ' h n Apll iPeter Cllector Rdon jg CG) D, ajy M; Rjv Gdh Pary EducaMin, R(: P j Ghi y Edt ’ Bk Dpt O Mp Rjdg () W A d St 2 1) th Chhtth Hgh C (pp ) 6 Shr Kise ad Ad t Gal f h ps rRt : JUDT (* , 0) The‘ following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the perties are heard on l l.A.No.01/2010, an application for condonation of‘the delay in l filing the writ appeal. l p 2) On due consideration 'of the submissions of learned - ‘i counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded m showmg sufforent cause for the delay in filing the writ appeal; 3) i A No 01/2010 therefore Is allowed and delay of 33 days In filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission 5) Appellant Ram Nath Yadav has filed this writ appeal. against the impugned order dated 19.11.2009, passed. in ’ W.P.S.No.6768/2009. 6) The appellant/ petitiOner sought the following reliefs in the Writ petition : 1‘10.1 That, the petitioner'most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to provide regular pay scale as per appointment order regularizing the petitionerin the service. 10.2 That, the petitioner further prayed that, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to provide back wages (deference of regular pay & Collectors Rate) With bank rate interest to the petitioner @ 10.3 Any other reiief, as it may deem m and proper in the facts & circum tances of the case alongwith costs of the petition”! 7) The petitioner, thus, in s: bstance was seeking regularization of his services. $) Learned Single Judge on a thorough scrutiny of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties dismissed the appellant's writ petition on the ground of delay and Iaches. 9) Shri Jeet Patel,‘ learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as the delay in the present matter can never be termed as inordinate. i0) Appellant Ram Nath Yadav was appointed on the post of l?eon in the year 1995 on contract basis for a period of one year. The petitioner claims regularization of his services on the sole l ground that two other persons namely, Anjor Singh and Roop Singh, who were appointed along with him in the year 1995 were later on regularised in service in the year 1996. 11) For the cause of action, which admittedly arose in the year 1996 the appellant filed the wriLpetition after about 13 years in the year 2099 1,2) Neither In the writ petition nor In wit appeal any cogent and sufticrent reason has been assigned for explaining the inordinate delay of about 13 years in fling the writ petition x mi~ :13) ‘ We, therefore, do not find any Iinflrmity in the impugned 7 ’: order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed ogn the ground of delay and _ _ i ‘ , 1 ‘laohes. E, ' 1'4) As we do not find any scopel for interference in this infra Court appeal, the writ appeal is liab:_le to be dismissed and is l hereby dismissed summarily. // a V‘ R" i ‘ ‘ Sd/- l sdl- I l Chief Justice i ) prashant Kumar Mlshra l - .'. I ‘i in Judge subbu' 2; so V; l l l ti ' H i x