^ G..^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS.) N0.^2-? /2^9 ^C?10' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ...<^ .^^ -2 ^Sffx ^p^ ^"'.^^x'" ^•V>' , ... 3. ^-' ^ Dipak Anandikar, aged about 47 years, son of Late Vasant Anandikar, Presently working as Block Education Officer, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (CG) VERSUS / 1. StateofChhattisgarh,through the Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan ^ Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Ballabh Bhavan, Bhopal (MP) The Director / Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Pt Ravishankar University Campus, Raipur (CG) 4. The Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, II Floor, Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) 5. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, Khan Market, New Delhi WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA .i )• ^.. ^^. tiiGH CQORT oreRHATTiSGARH :'BiSJ^SPUR. PETiTIONER. WRiT PETmeN^S) N0.735. OF'2010 DipakAnandikar ^faVersus, RESPONDENTS. "State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticje 226/227 ofthe Constitution-of India) , SingSe Bench : Hon'bie.'Shri^Satish'K. Agnihotri, J. -Pjesent - Shri 'N.K. Chatter|ee,1 counsei for the petjtioner. .ShriY.S.Thakur, Dy. Adv. Genera! for the State. IV!s Rou2Ja.l,iVllrza,: Asslstant Soiicitor General for the Union ofl.ndia.' . -' •ORDERYORAU ' (Passed on thls ,22nci day of February,.2010) . 1. ' Wlth ..the consent of learned counsel appearing:'for..the petittoner, the'petition Is heard finaiiy, . . • • .- 2. .^..By this petttjon,':-the petitioner seeks ajdiredion 'to the re^pQnd^nt;aythorities.to aliocat% his services fronn the. State. - of .Chhattisgarh1 ••to,.'the.. State ..of Madhya :Pradesh in compliance of the provisions contained lunder .the M.P. '.ReorganisationAct, 2000 (fQrshortlstheAct, 2000"). •-. • 3.' learned counseS" appeari.ng for the, petitioner submite that . prior to formation.:of the State' qf 'Chhattisgarh, by circular.' ' dated: 2-9-2000";(Annexyre. -. P/1).' optlons. were^ sought ' frefn the: empioyees ^ as^'per the^ prQvisions .contalned urtder^the' Act;"2000' for 'aliocation, GF:their services /bdween the.'State' ofMacihya'Pradesh-andState of G:hhattisgarh.; Pursuantto the.sald/.elreular, the 'petitioner submitted. his option for the' State of IViadh^a.Rradesh along with representation.as he is a resident of Bhopai (Madhya Pradesh). The case of the petitioner has not been considered in Its true perspectlve and he has been retalned in the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, this petition. 4. On the other'hand, Ms. Fouzla Mirza, learned Asslstant Solicitor Genera! appearing for the.Union of Jndia and Shri Thakur, iearned Deputy Advocate General appearing forthe State submit that a commlttee was constituted by the Government of. india to consider the representations of the empioyees for allpcation of -thelr services to the State of Chhattlsgarh/iViadhya Pradesh.St is not dear from any document asto whether the petitioner has approached the committee for consldering his grievances. Now the committee is not in existence and the approach of the petitioner for allocation of hls servicss to the State of Madhya Pradesh is belated. 5. i have heard Searned, cou.nsel appearing for the partlss, perused the pleadings and the documents. appended thereto. The State of Chhattlsgarh'-was formed on 1 -11 -2000. Services of number of employees were aliocated on the basis of their own choice/option. The petitioner has submitted his option oniy In the year 2003. Thereafter, he has not made any efforts for a!location of his services to the State of Madhya Pradesh except by submJtting reprssentations year by year. The petitloner has slept over his right for a long period. 8. !t is well settied that more than one representation cannot arrest the iimitation as even if representation is not considered and order is passed within a reasonabie period of six months, the petitioner may approach the High Court. The petitioner has not done the needful and 'waited to come fo this court ai'this beiated stage. Thus, this petition cannot be' entertained and the same deserves to be dismlssed. This Court In Chaln Singh Pendre v. State of • C.G. & Others , observed that "It is weii'' ssttlsd that if the representatlon is not considered and order Is not'passed wfthin a reasonabie period of slx months, the petitioner may approach the Hlgh Court. The petltioner has not done the nee(fful and walted for 18 yearstocome to thls Couft at this beiated stage. Thus, this petition cannof be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed' on the ground of defay andlaches^ Having regard 16 the facts situation of the case, wherein the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 1.11.2000 and the petitioner has not rajsed a dlspute before the Committee with regard to ailocation of his services to the State of Madhya Pradesh before filing of this petition, the petition deserves to be and is accordingiy .dismissed at the motion stage itself. Gowri 1.- Sd/- Satish K. Agnibom Judge 2009 (2) C-GLJ 377