HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'nseARH AT BILAspU wm Appeal No.28 of EO 1'1 ' Smt Suhas Pradhan, widow o 1afa Shn DV P adhan, aged about 65 vearsL Occupatlon Retlred Ass1stant Teac er, Govt Indira Gandm Boys Dmmary ”choel Satugudhx Chauk Ralgalrh Tahs1l and Dlstrlct Ralgarh (CG) Pres¢ntly remdlng at Plat Na.2G4, Second Floor Saket EXterision, Ugrasen ChauK, Bilas‘pur, Tahsil and District Bixas‘pur (CG) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh (earlier Madhya 'Pradesh) Through the Secretary, Department of Schofol Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) (Peitir RESPO NDEN’I‘S: Shn Roop Nmk counsel for the appellant Shn U N S Deo, Govt Advocate for the Statefrespondents Divlsion Bench Hon’ble shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N Chandrakar, JJ. JUDGMENT (442011) . The appellant was appomted as Ass1stant Teacher on 30*11 June, 1964 She was terminated from semce by the Dmtnct Educauon Ohicer, aigarh on 5-5-1971 on account of absence mm dunes. She was re- appointed and'posted at Govemment Girls Primary School, Gharghoda on 11—7- 1986, however, her representations for beneht of earlier service were not considered whereupon she filed an Original Application before the StateAdministrative Tribunal, Madhya‘Pradesh, Raipur Bench on 20th March, 1998. After abolition of the TribunaL-the case was transferred to the High Court and her writ petition has been dismissed R f , APPELLANT: to’rm) Present R g ) 2. Leaxed counsel for the appallant submitted‘that the writ petition‘has not been considered on merits and the same has been dismissed on the; ground of delay and laches Learned $ing1e Judge has failed to: appxecmte that the appellant had been matkmg representauons befo the respondent autbonhes mm 5 5 1971 {o 11 7 1986 and thereafter from 11 7 1986 to 20 3 1998 and the Onglnal Apphcatlon was Eed after servmg notlce dated 17 11 1997 under Section 80 CPC In VIEW of the above, leaxned Smgle Judge ought to have condoned the delay and decided the petition on men'ts. . Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ' petition with an obSefGation that. the petitioner/appellant ‘had been, making lepresentatmn one after the another for several years but she d1d not take recoulse to any legal remedy nor d1d she approach any Court of law for redressal of her grievance The said order of termination remamed unchallenged and unquestioned 1n any Court of law unt11 the cla1m for reinstatement With grant of serv1ce .benent n‘om the date of original appomtment was raised for the hrst hme 1n the mstant pehtlon nled 1n the year 1998 1 e after 27 years There 1s no explanation whatsoever odered 1n the pennon to Jushfy such a long delay of 27 Vears . We are entirely in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissmg the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches Without adverting to the merits of the order of termination dated 5 5 1971 In the result we mid no substance 1n this writ appeal the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the admissmn stage itself. p t new; ‘’xm, A .11} I re l t Sd/- x Sdl— . Dhirendi‘a M‘Shré ‘ 1: ., memATH CHANDRAKAR .t Barve ‘ *x.“ w Judge l t > . Judge