i<!i f^' ( {TQ IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE ATBILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT APPEAL N0.........^.>...../ 2007 APPELLANT: ^f'/ ?<%:r ...••" -%" ".f^" ^"^" ^v'~ .^" / ^yy ^ Smt. Ganga Nagesh , aged about 34 years, W/o. Shri Raghunath Nagesh, Occupation - Assistant Teacher, Mata Rukmani Sewa Sansthan, Mutanpal, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS r-:l. Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule e^S^^'\CL\~' {^^['nbe & Backward Classes ^T^^ ^^^ Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^^ -•^^ .-"•''^^' p"" [ ^^-^ \0 ?2SV^^.. ^•^'^""•^'.^^: ^" .^"i.. ,2. Collector, Tribal Department, District—Bastar (C.G.) 3. Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, District Bastar (C.G.) 4. Secretary, Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE 157 flO) (a\ (2} OF CHAPTER XI OF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RU LES.fi 995^ ^.oo^ \.^ ^ HJGHCOURT^FCHHMBSG^WHjAILA^^ DMsjonBench Coram : Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu. CJ & Hon'ble Shr»V.K. Shrivastava, J APPIELLANT WRITAPPiAL N0,25 QF 2007 Smt. Ganga Ns^esh Versus RgSJ^>NDEMS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Present: Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate wi»iShri B.D. Badgaiyan, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addi. Advocate Generai f@r respondents No. 1 and 2. None for other respondents. ORAL^RBtiR (Passed on 28th February, 2©07) The following oraf order of the Ccxjirt v^is passedl by H.L. Dattu, C.J. Appeliant before us was appointed as Assistant w<^ Teacher/Upper Division Teacher m aided Jnstitutjon. There |^1a revision of pay scale some time in the year 1995. Since the benetit of revision of pay scate was not given to the petitioner, she had approached this Court by filing a petition sometime in the year 2006. Learned single Judge had rejected the writ petition s@iely on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the pettttoner m approachtng this Court merely after 11 years from the date of notification issued by the Centrai Government. €) 2) The discretionary jurisdjction of &iis Court cannot t?e extended to a person who slept over her right. There te no exptanation much tess reasonabie explanation by the petltioner in approaching this Court for imptemeniation of ttie beneflt of the notification (rterely after 11 years from the dat@ of issuance of the notifScation. 3) tn our opinion, the detay in filing the petifion by the peWioner is fatal to the proceeciings. Therefore, the loamecS singte Judge had rightiy rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error in th© orders passed by the teamed single Judge whsch vwuid caM for interference by us. Accordingty the writ appeal js rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- CIiief Jusrice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge