";] '-i:~^-.. c< j^j^?a-g a.Sfc-iiiw'i i5^i1 ^ GU^S ^S IMSi ,3 ^K? INHA. Gagan Chand Jain S/o. late Shri ihohare Lal Jain. aged about 73 years, retired Asst. Teacher R/o. Chhuikhadan, distt. Rajnandgaon. StateofM.P.(NowCG)i Secrstary Education .01) 2. The Director, Public Instruction, Ralpur. 3. The Joint Director, Public Instruction, Principal, Govt. Higher, condary School, Chhuiek Se dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Dv. Director, Public lnstructi< Kawardha, dist. Durg. Present: Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appeliant. Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Deputy Advocate General with Shri Suryakant Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents. ^.t ^ ~~ ~ ff^ rt of the Court was passed bv *'.»>. ""^ yf"^SSkl <®-ys%t Learned counse! for the parties are heard on i.A. No.01/2010, an application forcondonation ofthe deiay in fllina the wnt appei It 3 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearnsd counse! for the parties and^ the. grounds taken in the application, we are satlsfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the writ appea!. therefore, is allowed and the deiav of 16 days in fi'ing the'wit appeal is 4) S'nri H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant - Gagan Chand Jain f aaainst the impuaned order dated 06-05 No. 1523/2005. filed this writ appeal 0, oassed in VV.P.(S) 3) The appellant/' petitioner filed the Original Appiication before ihe State Administrative Tribunal, which Sater on after' the Tribunal vvas registered as writ petition after transfer of the cas', to the Hiah Court, for the followina reliefs: "(a) To grant the pay scaie as craft teacher right from his appolntment. (b'i Costs of Proceedinas. (c) Any other relief which this Hon'bie Tribunal may deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the appiicant." •<t ~ ~ ^-^- .. '^ '"t:^ Igjjg?^s^^ 7) The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking grant of pay- scale as Craft Teacher right from his appointment in the year led Sin< 5} Learned Single Judge on a thorough cQnsideration of the sleadings of the parties and the submissions advanced on their behaif found that the appeilant's appointment later on was revised in the year 1960 and he was appointed on the post of Lower Divlsion Teacher; the appellant never objected to h.is subsequent appointment on the post of Lower Division Teacher; the saiary for the post of Lower Division Teacher alone vvas drawn by the appellant through out his service titi he retired in the year 1997; the petitioner's Originai Application filed before the Tribunai in the year 1997 suffered from delay and laches as it was fi!ed after 37 years of his subsequent appointment in the year 1960 on the post of Lower Division Teacher. Learned Slngls Judge, therefore, did not flnd any good ground warranting interference in the.-matter ans dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 06-05-2010. 9) Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the vehemently argued that as the appellant was initiaSly appointed on the post of Craft Teacher in the year 1958, the appellant is entitied to get pay-scale for the post of Craft Teac'ner right from the date of his appointment in the year 1958. 10) Neither in the Original Application nied before the Tribunai, whJch later on was converted into a writ petition nor before us in this writ appeal any chalienge has been made to the appeilant's 1 o subsequent appointment in the year 1960 on the post of Lower Division Teacher. It is not in dispute that the appeilant drew sa!ary for the post of Lower Division Teacher through out his sen/ice tenure tlll hls retirement In the year 1997. The cause of action, if any, obviously arose in the year 1960 and the Origina! Application was fiied before the Tribunai after 37 vears, in the vsar1997. 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counse! for the appellant; the reasonings given by learned Single Judae in the impugned order; and the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we do not find any ground warranting interference in this 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarily. 1 E: Sd/- ! "« Chief Justice Sd/- Suiiil Kumar Sinha Judge