.^*E ^ ?L ^vt^ jj ^ :I ^ ^'sn'a® 1 w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: t^Sl HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRi SUNIL 1 (Petitioner) Writ Appeal No. 263 of 2009 : Gambhir Singh Patel S/o Parmanand, aged about 64 years, occupation retired Patwari in P.h. No. 41, R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil Sarangarh and District Raigarh, C.G. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur C.G. 2. The Collector, District Raigarh C.G. Respondents 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Sarangarh, District Raigarh C.G. Memo of under Section 2(11 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to DivisJon Bench) Act. 2006 Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, leamed Additional AdvocSte General for the State/ respondents. JUDGMENT (12th July, 2010) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by ^ajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsei forthe parties are heard. 2) Appellant Gambhir Singh Patel has filed this intra Court appea! against the impugned order dated 24-06-2009, passed in "». 'y% g ^^•'•^s^i itoi'iS.Hgr W.P.(S) No. 6342/2006, whereby the appetlant's writ petition was dismissed. 3) The appeltanV petitioner filed the writ petition for the fotlowing reliefs: "7.1 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records, pertaininfl to the case of the petitioner. 7.2 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, whereby directing the respondent authorities concerned to pay the amount of family pension to the petitioner, which was deducted from his monthly saiary. 7.3 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, whereby the respondent authorities be directed to provide She difference amount, which the petitioner is entitled for after promotion and also provide pension, which he is entitled for after the order of promotion from the date of completion of 12 years, 24 years and 30 years of service. 7.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court be deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case be atso granted in favour of the petitioner." 4) The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking grant of Kramonnati after completion of his service of 12 years in the year 1978; 24 years in the year 1990; and 36 years in the year 2002. 5) Learned Single Judge considering the inordinate delay by the petitioner in filing the writ petition seeking Kramonnati, which according to him fell due in the year 1978 and 1990, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. ssss^ 6) Shri Rakesh Pandey, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the leamed Single Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the fact that the petitioner's similarly situated persons were granted Kramonnati in the year 2002 and that the petitioner's application submitted by him in the year 2005 was dismissed by the respondents in the year 2006. 7) Be that as it may, the fact remains that from the first Kramonnati, which according to the petitioner fell due in the year 1978, the writ petition was filed after about 28 years with no explanation for the inordinate delay of 28 years. Simiiarly, second Kramonnati, according to the petitioner himself fell due in the year 1990 and the writ petition was fited in the year 2006 i.e. after 16 years. It is also important to note that the writ petition came to be filed after the retirement of the petitioner in the year 2002. 8) In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appeliant's writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 9) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ChiefJustice Jud8e subbu