ni-;hif?n R^nr^ 2 yiiV^sv^-s y^hN.^ii /? ,^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT APPEAL N0.........^^..../2007 APPELLANT: €i ^sC' ^M?--y ^•'^•' ^^/ ' ^>'' ^Smt. Shashibala Gandhrala,, aged about 35 years, W/o. Shri Ram Lal Gandharala , Occupation — Assistant Teacher, Mata Rukmani Sewa Sansthan, Kanya Aashram, Dhanora, District Dantewada (South Baster) (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^:1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe & Backward Classes Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Tribal Department, District - Bastar (C.G.) 3. Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, District Bastar (C.G.) y4. Secretary,. Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE 157 (10) (a) (2) OF CHAPTER XI OF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES. ^^^ ^.A^ ^ HIGH COURT OIF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Coram: Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon'bte Shn V.K. Shrivastava, J WBIAPPEAL_NO,_260_F20Q7 APPiLLANT Smt. Sh^hibaia Gandhrala, Versus RESPQNDENTS Stafte of Chhattisgarh ancJ others. Present: Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate wtth Shri B.D. Badgaiyan, counseSfor the pstitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Mdt Advocate Oeneral for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for other respondents< ORM.J^DgR (Passed on 28th February, 2007) The foliowing oral order of the Couri: was i^ssed isy H.L. Dattu, C.J. Appellant before us was appointed as As^stant t^) Teacher/Upper Division Teacher in aided institutlon, There (8 a revision of pay scale some tsme in the year 1995. Slncethe benefit of revision of pay scaie was not given to the petitioner, she Nad approached this Court by fiting a petition sometlme in the year 2006. Leamed single Judge had rejeeted the wnt petition solety on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court yoereiy after 11 years from the date ot notification issued by the Central Govemmeni "\. 2) The cliscretionary jurisdid:ion of this Court cannot be sxtended to a person who stept over her right. There is no explanation much iess reasonable explanation by the ^tstloner In approaching this Court for implemientetion of th@ ben^fit of the notification G^erely after 11 years from frie date of issuance of the notifacation. 3) In our opinion, the deiay in filing the petition by tie petitionar is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, ttie learn«lsingle Judge had rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error in the orders passed by the learned single Judge whiah wouid cait for interference by us. Accordingly the writ appeal ts rejected. Ordered accordingly. , Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge ^^