c,f ' ^^^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH SEiB AT BILASPUR WMT APPEAL N0. ll°> /2010 (D.B.t RESPONDENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS ^i^/6) ^ ,y t' ^y .->»" APPELLANT/ / Guru Charan Singh, S/o Sadhu Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o Warden Quarter, near water tank, Govt. Engineering College, Koni, P.0. Koni, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Directorate of TechniGal Education, Through- Its Director, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ,3. Govt. Engineering College Bilaspur, Through Principal, Govt. Engineering College, Koni Bilaspur, Disft. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDERSECTION 2UJ O^L THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAI^^P DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006. Being aggrieved by an order dated 08.03.2010 (AnnexureA/1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench (Justice A' /^/^ ^ Iv y(? ••o- ".^/ /{^'' <^7-' ,--•'Nl Q?/ .9' y^. i!it.rfd 'i'^S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HQN'BLE SHR! LM.QUDDUS! & HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. JJ APPELLANT (Petitsoner) RESPONDENTS (Non-applicants) WRIT APPEAL N0.119/2010 Guru Charan Singh Vs State of C.G. & others Prssent: . N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate for the appeiiant. '. Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed QP. 30th Aprsl, 2010J ,M. Quddusi, J; 1. Heard tearned counse! for the parties at iength. 2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5936/05 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. 3. in the writ petifion, the petitioner/writ appetlant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.4.1992 whereby he was denied one annual increment. The petitioner/writ appeliant did not raise any objection nor approached the appropriate forum, but later on, he moved an appiication in the year 2003 and got a letter of the Additional Director, Technicai Education, Directorate, Raipur dated 1.4.2004 that he was rightiy denied one increment. 4. Learned Singie Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of deiay & faches vide order under chaiienge. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the.viewjhat ><:-' . Istter dated 1.4.2004 cannot condone the delay/^as the main irievance of the petitioner is deniai of increment which was made by an order passed on 27.4.1992 and therefore, we see no good ground to interfere in the impugned order, rather there is no infirmity 6r iltega.lity in the impugned order which we uphoid. 6. !n the resuft, the writ appeai has no substance, the same is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. ———-— Sd-/ 1 MamndraMohan Shrivastava I.M. Quddusi I Judse l-.--,-—----.^^