COURTFEES EXEMPTED BYNOTIHCATION N0.9960/0-287(VXX!- B/C.G./aS AS SPECtRED IN SCHEDULE I & fl OF THE COURT FEES ACT 1870. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH M.C.C. N0. / ^f /2010 ^. , , ! fARISING OUT OF W.P. N0. 3467/2000^ APPLICANT ^l. PETITIONER A^ fi ^' -^' ^^.•••' ^ p*^ ^ 4,. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The State of M.P. (Now CG) Through: The Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bhopal (At present Raipur) Chhattisgarh The Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bhopal (At Present Raipur) Chhattisgarh The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS: NON-APPLICANT ^' N.M. Soleman, S/o. J. Soleman, aged about 54 years, R/o. Near Shiv Talkies, Raja Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The State Administrative Tribunal, M.P. Jabalpur LiSTO APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF W.P. N0. 346^/2000. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY. ACCOUNTS AND PENSION, RAIPUR & 3 OTHERS VS. N.M. SOLEMAN AND ANOTHER /\Ff{ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. C. C. No. 19of2010 AppUcants The Joint Dircctor & othei^ Versus Respondents N. M, Soleman &aiiother DB: Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotn & Hon'ble Shri Maximdra Mohan Sbiivastava, JJ APPLICATION FOR RBSTORATION OFW.P. No. 3467/2000 Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate GeneralwiUhi SIui Aiarito Das, Panel Lawyer for the appUcante. OROBRtWlA (Passed on this 3rd day ofyebraary, 2010) Per Satisfa K. Agnihotri J. Heanl, 1. The appUcante have j51ed tihis applicatioa for rcstDxation offhe W.P.No. 3467/2000 {The Joint Director, Treasuiy, Accounts & Pension, Raipur & otihers Vs, N, M< Soleman & anotiiex^ wMch was dismissed fomon-prosecution by oxder dated 23<8,^)06» 2. As per the office report the appl&cation for restoaatioxi has besieax filed after a delay of 1203 days, The appKcaaite have fUed LA.Nb, I fi>r coMonation of delsy m filing tfae applicatioai for restoratxon. 3. The Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners/State on 9,6.2000, iEDipugning the oxder dated 23.2.2000, passed by the M. P. Administeative Tribzmal, Raipur Bench, in O.A.No. 157/97 (N. M. Soteman Vs. The Joiat Director & Qthers), whereby the petitioners/State were directed to pay full salary for tihie suspensioa period to fhe emplayee/respondent wifhia three months of receipt of tfae order. 4. The writ petition was admitted 0x114.7,2000, stayfaig fhe order of payment of faU salary for the suspension period- Thercafter, fhe matter was called out on 25.7.2006 and 23.8.2006 but none appearcd nor aay rcpresentation was made on behalf of .-. 2-' ftiepetitionera/State, Ultimately, fhe petitioii was dismissed on 23.8.2006 for non-prosecution, The petitloners/State has preferred tha& applicatioa for rcstoration of fhe writ petition on 8.1.2010 after a delay of 1203 days, imthout aay satisfactoxy explanatioii^ except tfaat fhe time was taken on accoiint of piocedural saaictioii and approval. Afiter dusxmssal of fhe mairi writ petition the oxider of the Tribiuial was revived aad fhe xieBpoiideiil/eiiiployiee becaaie entitled to full payment of salaiy fi)r tfae auspensioxt period. Afher a period of 1303 days fhe old issiae/wNch stand concluded, cannot be agitated, If fhe rcstoratioxi appMcatioa is aBowed after grant of applicatkm for coxidoaiation of delay, tfae same would defeat fhe purpose and object 6f tfae Lioa^atiioa Act, 1963, as weU as the nght accrued ia favour of fhe Jfirst xespondent, wldch Iie inust Iiave enjpyed for flie last tfarce yeare, would be prejudiced. Thus, haviag gaxd to the facts sitiiation offhe case, whenemi no pubUc irxterest is iiivolved, it is justaad proper to rejcct Ifae appUcation for condonatioa of delay for suctx aa moidiikate aad unexplaiafid delay. Inviewoftfae above, the appUcat3bn Jfor condoiiation ofdelay te disxmssed, Consequenfty, the application for iiestoratton of W.P.No. 3467/ 2000 is also dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Maniudra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ThAur