1T iSGH C.OURT OF CHHATTlSGAKn ,-n, Writ Petition No.3039/200( unwn'i. s'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, Chief Justice Hon'bte Shri D.R.Deahmukh, J. iTin °ESPO_NDENTi D.S.Sharma, S'o Late Shri Hari Rarn Sharma, Aged about 78 years, Retired Lectursr, Govt. Muitipurpose, H.S.School, Bilaspur, R'o. C/o Shaiiesh Book Depot, h^adhya Nagan ChoivK, h.4asanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsif and Dist. Bi!aspur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretasy, Depailment of School Education, MantraSaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Ralpur (C.G.) 2. Director, Pubiic instructions, Chhatiisgafh, Raipur (C.G.) Joint Director of Education, Bilaspur Djvision, Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Ashish Shrivasteva, learned c-ouns®!for the petlttoner. Shri Ufkareh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. QRDER (Passed on 02.08.2005) The fotiowing oral order of the Court was passed f 1 ^rf'I^. This writ petition is dirscted against the Order of the M.P. AdminEstrative Tribunal, Jabaipur (for short the Tribuna!) dated 18.5.19' passsd in Original ApplicaSlon No.739/1988 whereby and whereunder th( Original Appjfcation filed by She petitioner herein assailing the order of the State of ChhatSisgarh 02.08.1986 has dismissed hoidina that the gtaim is ban-ed by iimitation. The correctness of the said opinion is contested in this Petltion fii'ed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution oflndia. 2. Thiscase neednotdetaintheCourtforlong. The facSs are startling and are totally against the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Food Procurement Inspector In the Government semce vide 17.04.1949. Later on, the said post of Assistant Fooc Procuremen! Inspector was abolished and al! the AssisSant Food ProcuremenS Snspectors ofthe Food Department were declared surplus. However, the Government of C.P. and Berar taking compassionate view of the matter evolved a scheme vide Circular 30.09.1953 to absorb the services of those Assistant Food Procurement Inspectors In various Departments of the Govemment in class-ill executive post. Accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed In the School Education Department as Lower Division Teacher w.e.f. 8.10.1954 vide order 28.09.1954. It appears that the petitioner wlthout any protest and demur accep{ed that post and worked as such for more than 31 .years. At the fag end of his sen'ice, it that he made a representation to the Govemment that his seivicss ought to have absorbed as Assistant District Inspector of SchooSs (A.DJ.S.5. It was contended that similarly circumstanced certain others were absorbed in the post of A.D.I.S. and the Govemment ought not to discrimjnation in the matter of absorption of services of ershf.'hile Assisfant Food Procurement Inspectors. The request of the petitioner was turned down by the Govemment vide order 2.8.1996. aggrieved by ths said Order, the petltioner fiSed Original Application No.739/1988. The O.A. was by the Government. ^Among-ofher grounds, it was contesfed on the ground of inordinate delay and and by iimitation. The Tribunal having noted the fact Shat though the services of the petitioner were as Lov/er Division Teacher as far as on 8.10.1954, he made the representation for the first time In the y$ar 1986 and Sherefore, the ciaim brought before the Tribunai by the peSitioner is hope!essiy by Ijmitation, dismlssed the Origina! Appiication by the impugned ordsr. 3. Ift/a h- We have absolutely no good ground or reason to fake exception to the discretion by the Tribunal. It is wel! settled that the Tribuna! md Shis Court can decline relief to a party v/ho has over his right and is not diligent in pursuing legal remedies. The iaw helps the vigi'ant and not the indolent. Even assumlng that the petitioner's seroices ought to have absorbed as A.D.'.S, in the year 1954 and not as Lower Division Teacher, even then, at this distance of tirne his claim cannot be countenanced and no retiefcan be granted. 4. The wrlt petition is, 'thersfore, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge