IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU Coram: Hon’ble shri Dhirendra Mishra & Han’ble Shri RN. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Appeal No.278 of 2010 Anoellant LL. Chandra S/o Late Saheb Lal Chandra, aged about 58 years (now aged about 61 years), Occupation Govt. Service, was posted as Acccunt Aasistant Grada-1 at District Treasury Ja’njgir (CG) (retired ’w.e.f. 30.11.2008) Permanent Addrese Jabara Road New Sarkanda Bilaspur (CG) Vs‘ Resnendents State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Finance Department, Treasury, Accounts and Pension D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) 2. Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG) 3. Joint Director Treasury Accounts and Pension Nutan Colony, Bilaspur (CG) Distriot Treasury Officer, Janjgir Champa at Janjgir (CG) 5. Shri S.P, Vishwakarma aged about 55 years, (now .58 years) S/o Unknown; Occupation Govt. servant; . Posted as’Aocount Assistant, District Treasury Damon, District Damon (MP) Present: shri Vishwanath Goswami with Shri Uttam Pandey, Shri SumesnBajaj, GA. for the State. counsel for the appellant. ORALJuoGMENT (07.91 .201 1) The appeal is already admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, appeal is heard finally. I 2‘ ‘The case of the appellant is that while he was working as pper Division Clerk, he was considered and promoted to the post of‘Accounts Assistant and posted at Dhar vide order dated H R U ye 28121996, However; the appeuant had forgone his promotion vide his letter datad 17.01 .1997‘ In the year 2003, the appeltant was promoted as Accounts Assistant and in the year 2005, he made representation claiming seniority on the post of Accounts Assistant w.e.f 1997 on the ground that though he had forgone his promotion in the year 1997; in the eubeequent years, when promotions were made in the year 1998 and 2000, he ought to have been promoted. The appeiiant aiso iiied application for grant of promotion under time bound scheme vide his representation dated 06.09.2001. When his representations were not considered, he iiied petition in August 2007. 3, The petition has been dismissed with the observation that promotion orders on the post of Accounts Assistant were issued on 25.08.1098 (Annexure P-8), 12.07.2000 (Annexure P—Q) and 01 08.2000 (annexure P-1 0) by which time bound promotion was granted. The appeiiant did not raise any grievance claiming promotion between 1996 and 2000. From representation dated 06.09.2001 Annexure P-11, it is ciear that the appeiiant was aware that persons junior to him have been promoted. Even after making representation in theyear 2001, he did not take recourse to any iegai remedy oiaiming promotion. He was promoted on 01 10.2003 to the post of Accounts Assistant Grade-1, however, for aimost two years; no steps were taken by the appeliant for claiming seniority on the promotion post from the date ciaimed by him. in his First representation made as iate as on 28.09.2005, it was not stated that he came to know about the promotion order made in the year 1998i 1999 and 2000. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the petition has been . dismissed on the ground of delay and latches by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of A.J. Fernandis ‘ vs. Divisional Manager: South Central Railway and Others reported in (2001) 1 scc 24o. ##i ‘i i I} ,1- \6 5. Learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that the appellant had no knowledge that his juniors were promoted in the year 1998, 1999 and 2000. He learnt about the same only in the year 2005 and thereafter, he started making representations which were not decided. 6. On the other hand, Shri Sumesh Bajaj; learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that from perusal of representation of Annexure P—11 dated 06092001, it is evident that the appellant was aware as on 06.09.2001 that his juniors were promoted on 12.07.2000, therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard that he came to know about the promotion of his juniors only in the year 2005 has been rightly rejected. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as also the pleadings in the petition and documents annexed with it. Learned Single Judge considering that there was an inordinate delay in challenging the superoession by the appellant, has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and latches, 8. After close scrutiny of the impugned order, we find no permissible ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, we dismiss this writ appeal being without any Priya), substance #K Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra‘ R.N. Chandrakar Judge Judge