)yT) IH THE HXGH GOUR'i' OSL 3VB1CSSVSE QT GHH&TISGABH AT BIL&SgU& [.P. ~No..0^4up:,/of 2Q01 (Under Articles 226 & 227, ^onstitutieB of India) BayaraHi Zstouji Patke, son of Shri Zaibuji Pa-fcKe, aged aibout 58 years, by oceigia-fcion servlee, r/o B-114, Sector-I, Deyeadra Nagar, R&ipur. iVERSUS s 1. Unionof India, tlirougb theSeeretacy, Ministry of. Teleeoimnunica-fci-oa, New Delbi» • 2. Shief Seaeral Manager, Selecoa, Madbya Eradesh Circle, Bhopal (M.P.). j, 3. General Hanager,:Ieiecom, Biai,pHE^,Bisferict Raipur. ; 5 4. BeputyQenerat Kanager, 'Eelecom, Raipur Bistr^c'fc Raipia;. 5» 'Eeleeom Distric-t: Baglaeer, Raipur Bivision, Raipur. ' 3 6. Ceirtral Adaiaistrab;i.ve'Cribunal, ; •JabalpajT Beneh, iTabalgHr, througb its Bepiafey Re&istrar. .^. .yy PETia'ION '0KBER AKEIGLES 226^_2rLt,C:0^'EIZUTIOB OE- IHBIA. \K#^ ^.;*-: •:;^^:;i'^&t;:^! HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILA^PUR DMSION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. Writ Petition No. 240 OF 2001 PETITiONER RESPONDENTS Dayaram Zabuji Patke Versus Union of India & others li^ ls£18SS!il8 Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitipner. Shri R.h4. Solapurkar, counset for respondents No. 3 & 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 0151 March, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, C.J. The order passed by the Centra! Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in O.A. No.696 of 2000 is the subject matter of this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. (2) The petitioner was working with ttie respondents. He was of the vlew that he is entitled for the benefit under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme which has come into effect from 13.11.1983 and Other Benefits Scheme which has come into effect from 1.1 .1991. Since the respondents had rejected the request of the petitioner, he filed an appiication O.A. No.696 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Ss8i.,,te,issSSSfi s°';:"'s:""""ai». ?)ll* '^'^i'.^.^gi^ Tribunai, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur ('the Tribunal' for short ). The Tribunal has rejected the application so filed by the petitioner only on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal neariy after a decade from the date the aforesaid schemes have come into existence. (3) Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had contended that he was filing repeated representations and it is only after disposal of the representation / review petition by order dated 24.12.1999, he has filed the present application. (4) The Tribunal has taken into consideration that the representation filed by the petitioner had been rejected by the respondent / authorities on 6.12.84 itself and it is only after 1 5 years from the date of rejection of the representation, he had filed a review petition before the respondents and that review petition came to be rejected on 24.12.1^9. The Tribunal has also observed in its order that mere filing of the representation would not save the period of limitation. To come to that conclusion the Tribunal has relied on the observations made by the Apex Court. (5) In our opinion, the Tribunal is fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on theground of delay and laches. If for any reason, the petitioner is of the view that he is entHled for certain benefits under the aforesaid schemes which have come into existence on 13.11.83 & 1.1 .91, he should have approached the Tribunal within a reasonable time. Since that has not been done by the petitioner, the Tribunal isjustified in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the .U-.AB l|^i ';i^;i.;^^s^ Tribunal. We do not find any error in the impugned order. In fact, the order passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law declared by the Apex Court. Therefore, interference with the impugned order is not called for. Accordingly the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- ChiefJusticc Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge