Writ Petition {S) No. 1143 of 2009 Petitioner Respondents ^.-.-i-%t Dashrath iai Jaltare, aged about 41 years, son ofShri Jaitram, resident of village Kokhri, PO Tanaud, Tahsil Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir- C-hampa (CG). Versys 1. State of CG through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Coilector, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG). The Chief Executjve Officer, Janpad Panchayat - Pamgarh, Dlstt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). | Gram Panchayat Khokhari, through the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khokhri, Tehsi! Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-champa (CG). 3:?-^~"'. fcy (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofConstitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsel for the petltioner. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Depufy Advocate General for t'ne State. (Passed on this 27th day of February, 2009) Ttie petitioner was removed from the post of Guruji by order dated 17-8- 1999 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has not taken any steps .tili fiiing of this petition for aboutinore than nine ysars. The State of Chhaitlsgarh was carved out on 1-11-2000, pursuantto the M.P. Re-organization Act, 2000. The petitioner has slept over his right, ifany, forabout more than nine years without assigning any reasons. Even otherwise, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 5-1- 1999 (Annexure P/3) as Guruji in Shiksha Guarantee Yojna. Shiksha Guarantee Yojna came to an end and the petitioner was accordingly informed E>y.the impugned order dated 17-8-1999 (Annexure P/1). Once the scheme has coime < to an end, it is weli settied principte of iav/ that an empioyee cannot ciaim reinstatement or continuation In the dead scheme, which is not in existence. It is weii settled that when a project or a scheme or an office itself is aboiished, relief by way of reinstatement is not granted { see- State of M.P. and others Vs. Arjunlal Rajak (2008) 2 SCC 711}. 2) The iaw on the principle of v/aiver and acquiescence is weii ssttied that, if the petitioner sleeps over his rights and is not vjgiiant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, he may not be entitied to the same relief as was jranted to other vigilant persons/empioyees, 3) On iaches and delay in agitating the grievances before the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and another vs. Saikaran Singh observed as under: "22. According to us, the suit is also barred by acquiescence and estoppel. No one in a servfee can sieep over the question of seniority for more than 12 years and then come to court seeking a reiief which wi!J upset the seniority of a number of persons who had been shown as seniors in the respective seniority iists. Therefore, on the face of it, a declaratory relief that will have the effect of altering a twelve-year-old and a nine- year-old seniority Hst couid not have been granted by the courts below." 4) The Supreme Court in the matter of . U.P. Jai Nigam and anothervs. Jashwant Singh and a."Qther^, observed as under: "6. The question of deiay and iatches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and iaches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief ; under Articie 226 6f the Constitution. When aperson ; who is not vigiiant of his righi and acqulesces with the j situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of 1 years on the ground that same reiiefshoula be granied | to him as was granted to person simiiariy situated who ; was visilant about his riahts and chaitengedhis i ' (2006) 12 SCC.709 2 (2006) 11 SCC 464 r-- -3 retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of58years...." This petition has been filed without any explanatlon or justification for unexplained de!ay of 9 years. 6) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the case and deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ;