f~ !»"!®%W^ ^^^^- ^?^i^tes^i:^i^^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SiNGLEBENCH: HON'BLE SHRI H.l.. DATTU, CJ. PETITiONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition No.1719 of 2001 Smt. Hemkumari Sharma age 70 yeare, Wd/o late Shri Dani Ram Sharma, retired Head Master R/o viltage Adbhar, near Sakti, Dist- Champa- Janjgir . (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Chief Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) , : 4. Deputy Commissioner (Tribal' Welfare, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh$j 5. Principal Government. (T.W.D.) H.S. Umreli, Dist - Bilaspur (C.G.) : Writ Petition under Artiole 226/227 of the Constitutionofjndia. Present: Smt Mala Dubey, oounselfor the petitioner. Shri AS Kachhawaha, Govemment Advocate for the State / respondents. ; ; ORALORDER (Passedon 26mApril,aW) Husband ofthe petitioner was.working as Mead Master in aGovemment School. Me joined the sewioe on 16.07.1958. After attaining the,age oi' supeFannuation, he retired some time in the year 1991. Immediately after' hi^| retirement from the .sen/iee, the State GovernnFient has settled the. •Een'ninai1 •^ '.• ' • •'••'• '.'•• . "' • ".:- benefits payable to him. The husband ofthe petitionerwas receiving all these; benefits without even amurmur.Hediedon 15.05.1997 leavingbehindthel petitioner and others. For.the first time, the petitioner has approached'Wi^ Court intheyear2001jnferafe requestihg^thisGourttodirect!the respohdentsl in this writ petition for payment of un-paid salary and difference in We amount. penSic)fi| :'i:.::!:iL- ii"B ;3: .ai!i:!! 'IEt^ r:3ili;iia: wi.l S!31Bf'wi5B '2- (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the life time of husband of the petitioner, he was making representatio'ns for payment of difference in salaryforthe period 01.10.1981 to 13.04.1982 and 03.04.1984to 12.08.1988. Further it is stated that even after his death.the petitioner continued to make representations before the respondents for payment of difference in pension amount, as also un-paid salary, and therefore, it is stated by the petitioner that there is no delay in approaching this Court. (3) Per contra, learned counset for the State would submit that if for any reason, the husband of the petitioner had any gnsvance with regard to non- payment of salary for th6 aforesaicl period and also difference in pension amount, he should have approached this Court within a reasonable time and sincethathas not been done, the disoretionary relief of thisCourtshould not be extended. (4) The dates whioh 1 have mentioned earlier are not in dispute. The husband of the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation sometime in the year 1991, and immediately ali the tenninal benefits had been settled by the State,Govemment and he was reoeiving all these benefits, He died only on 15.05.1997. Even if it is assumed that the husband of the petitioner was making representations, it does not oure the delay and laches on his part in apprpaching this Court. (5) For the flrst time the petitioner is before this Court nearly after four years from the date of death of her husband. There is no expianation, much jess a reasonable explanation, in approaohing this Co^rt belatedty. The discretionary reliefofthis Court can notbeextended to a person whb had siept over his right. in that view of the matter.without going into other details of the oase, only on the ground of delayand laches on the part of the petitioner in approaohing^Utiis Court, in my oonsidered bpinion, this petition requires to be reject^d. Accordingly, thewrit petition is rejectE Sd/- Chief Justice