u.l\{0.2§7 V“ 1997 MMYAN 3mm; ”K w 33 53%? £35 Y ”esw/Q m: JUGRU aw MNGER Koua (Mugs . . . a . . . . .APPLIGEuJIT —Versus 1)9T§J =1 ORWKT DxEFz'. ‘V 9 U? .u .G A T,BH0P;LL. SJR‘MT‘OR ; 0" “OW T *- K1111 ,BAS'N.R (NJ ‘ \ . \ x, my Mu W3 wm; ra Fm gT DLPAIE‘ m5 MINM .r.,. .. n . . .. .1iu$:’0 iJJmN PS DWTQLILL UE‘ T'JE Pgi‘ITIOU l. PILdTIC MRS CF TYE LXPPbIG/UIE: AS abOVg‘to 2. LXRTICTAMHS: UE‘ TSIUL t 3”(‘\IDLNT§2 A :3 aibOve. ‘3 C“ TE OuD" IG T U m “ w v -AF‘FLEJ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Pstition {S} No. 1636/2005 PETITIONER Narayan Singh Uike Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh (now CG.) 8a Ors. Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. ORAL-ORDER {Passed on 30.6.20 1 1} With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. l. This petition has been flied by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 19.7.1996 (wrongly mentioned as 19.7.1997), by which respondent No.4 has been promoted as ranger. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent. No.4 ought to have been placed below the petitioner in the gradation list which was issued on 7.8. 1989, but, was wrongly placed above the petitioner. The petitioner made representation against the said gradation list, but, no action was taken by the respondents SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRE MAI‘HNDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Appearance: CO and as late aS in the year 1995, the petitioner was promoted as Dy. Ranger. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in granting promotion to respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 19.7. 1996 is illegal, because the petitioner should have been granted promotion before respondent No.4 as he is junior to him. . On the other hand, leamed counsel for the State submits that on petitioner’s own showing, respondent No4 was over and above the petitioner in the gradation list issued in the year 1989, which position was maintained and the petitioner did not challenge the same before any Court of law, It was on the basis of this gradation list that respondent No.4, who is shoWn senior to the petitioner, was promoted as Ranger, whereafter instant petition has been filed in the year 1997, lt is tinther submitted that the grant of seniority to respondent No.4 was in accordance with law. . On petitioner’s own showing, in the gradation list issued on 7.8.1989, respondent No.4 has been placed over and above the petitioner. Though petitioner claims to have made representation, it is not disputed that no petition was filed by the petitioner claiming seniority over and above respondent No.4 until respondent No.4 was promoted as Ranger in the year 1996 vide impugned order dated 19.7. 1996 (Annexure A-4). It is thus clear that from the year 1989 to 1996 the petitioner did not take a recourse to any remedy to assajl, the correctness of seniority position vis-c‘z—vis respondent No.4‘ 6. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Claim of the petitioner which is based on seniority is liable to be dismissed on the g‘ound that petitioner did not take recourse to any remedy under the law against the seniority granted to respondent No.4 in year 1989. As the entire claim in the present writ petition is based on assumption that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.4, which is factually incorrect, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliet 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the pendency of this writ petition, various retirai benefits of the petitioner are not being finalized and the petitioner is not getting full benefits of his retirement, though he has been retired in the year 2002. 8. It is therefore observed that if the petitioner’s retiral dues have not. been finalized on account of pendeney of this petition, now all the retiral‘ dues of the petitioner shall be iinalized expeditiously and whatever amount is due and payable to the petitioner under the law, shall be released to him without delay, at the earliest. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/r Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge