(D ^6^\ Q (£>^'^.1.7.,.^..-•"•'—•••" 7 ^^s^a^— ^Z;~iu..v.ii.^^-: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR C.G. WRIT PETITION Nt^: ^ /2005 PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS -co?l^ i>& ^s / Guru Charan Singh, s/o Sadhu Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o. Warden Quarter, near the water tank, Govt. Enguieering College Colony Koni, Post Office Koni, Dist. BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS y^l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- the secretary, Departoient of Humaa Resources, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Directorate ofTechnical Education, Through- its Director, Bairon Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) .3. The Govemment Engineermg CoUege BUaspur, through its Prmcipal, Govt. Engineering CoUege, Koni, BHaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS, ORDBR/ORDERS, OR/AND DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI. OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATB NATURE. Cj^ AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 5936 of 2005 Petitioner Guni Charaa Siagh Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Maaoj Jayaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K, Bhaduri, Paael Lawyer for fhe respondente. O RD E R (Qrall (Passed on fhis 8& day ofMarch, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash tib.e order dated 27.4.1992 (Annexure P/7), whereby it has been decided not to graat one iacrement to the petitioner, as he was a Technical Assistaat aad does not come witlun the categoiy of clerical staff. 2. Subsequentiy, after a penod of 12 years, a letter dated 1.4.2004 (Annexurc P/8), which is also sought to be quashed by the petitioner in fhis petition, was issued by fhe Additional Dircctor, Technical Education, Directorate, Raipur, in response to fhe letter of fhe petitioner dated 4,12,2003, entirely on difiTerent ground that ia 1968 fhe clerical staffand cIass-IV staff, who had not pardcipated ia strike were given one mcrement and fhe petitioner was rightiy denied fhe benefit of one iacrenient 3, At this juncture fhe petitioner subndts that hte reprcsentation dated 20.12.1991 is pendiag consideration before fhe Director j 2A Techxiical Education, Directorate, Madhya Pradesh, Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal, as it then was. The concemed authority may be directed to consider aad decide fhe reprcsentation of the petitioner, It appears fhat the cause of action arose ia fhe year 1968 when accordmg to fhe petitioner he did not participate ia the sfcrike aad the order regardmg denial of one iiicrcment was passed on 27.4.1992. The petitioner has not taken aiiy steps tiU fhe fiUjig ofthis petition ia fhe month ofNovexaber, 2005. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tridlp Kumar Dingid and otliers Vs. State of West Bengpl and otliers1, where ftie appellaats took 559 days ia approachmg fhe Court, causiag unexplamed aad iaordiaate delay, it was observed fhat There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court,The question is one ofdiscretion and has to be decided on fhe basis of facts beforc fhe court dependiag on and vaxyiag fi^om case to case. It wiU depend upon what the breach of ftuidamental right aad the remedy claimed are and when aad how fhe delay arose." In Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekmr v. State of Maharashtra2 Hon^ble Supreme Court obsewed fhat WDelay or laches is one offhe factors which is to be bonie in miad by the High Court when they exercise fheir discrctionaiy powers. In aii appix>priate case the High Court may refuse to invoke ite extraordmary powers if fhere is such negUgence or omission on the part of fhe applicaat to assert his right as taken in 1 {(2009) 1 SCC 768 } 2 (JT 2009 (3) SC 487) 1 % \j-fy "u-<£:^£?^^^ Ko conjunction with the lapse of time aad ofher circumstances, causes prcjudice to the opposite party, 7. In R. N. Bose Vs. Uniou of India3 , reUed on in Yunus (supra) it was observed fhat no i^elief caa be given to the petitioner who wifhout aay reasonable explaaation approaches fhe Court after iaordinate delay. 8. In State of M.P. Vs. Nandlal4 , rcUed on in Yunus (supra), it was stated fhat the High Court ia exercise of its discretion does uot ordiaanly assist fhe tardy aad tJie mdolent or the acquiescent axid fhe lefhai^ic, If there is iaordiaate delay on fhe part of the petitioner aad such delay is not satisfactorily explaiaed, fhe High Court may decline to iateryene, 9. Having appMed fhe weU settled prmciples oflaw on laches aad delay on the facts of fhe case on hand, it is evident that fhe cause ofaction arose in fhe year 1992 when the petitioner was derded one iacreinent. The petitioner niade a representation prior to fhat aiid fhereafter did not take any steps till date. The prmciple of acquiescence aad waiver is appUcable to fhe facts of fhe case as fhe petltioner has waived and acquisitioned to his right The next letter dated 1.4.2004 cannot create a cause of action as fhe samLe was written ia response to tiie letter of the petitioner dated 4,12.2003 ia respect of denial of one mcrcment earlier, as afore-stated. Thus, at fhis stage after a lapse of niore fhan 13 years fhe petitioner is not entitled to any reUef. 3 {AIR 1970 SC 470) 4(AIR 1987 SC 251) /£ ^t ^^^^^^&i?^?!. 1^J.f '"^s^ 10. Thakur ^ In view of the forcgoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs, —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge