APPLICANTS] 1 State of Chhattisgarh, thmugh the RESPONDENTS Secmtaly, Water Resoumcs Department, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2 The Engineer-in—Chicf, Water Resources Department, State 0f Chhattisgarh, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G). Vs. Hon-APPLICANT] KM. Khare, s/o‘ Shri C. B. Khaxe, APPELLANT aged about 63 years, R/o House A] 1, 25 Bunglow Colony, Behind Gazebo Hotel, Vyapar Vihar Road,rBilaspm‘ (0G). APPEARANCE: Mr. G. D. Waswani, Govt. Advocate for theapplicants. om [0mm . (20.09.2010) Per LM. QUDDUsI, J 1. Thiq petition has been N1ed seeking review of the judgment . dated 8th April, 2010 passed by us in Writ Appeal No.44/2010 modifying the order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in w.p(S). No.3639/ 2009. 2. This review petition is hatred by 23 days, thaefote, the matter has been listed for otders in default. But we axe not going into the question of delay as we wanted to consider the e merits ofthe case to see if there em‘sts any good ground or there is any error apparent on the face of meord calling upon . review of our order dated 08.04.2010. gar " \~" HIGH GOURT 9F CHI-[AT‘I‘ISGARH‘ BILABPUR DB: _ HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI & HON’BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ REVIEW PETITION P.R. No.1759 OF 2010 QWM. Hana 3. This writ appellant has iiird an appeal before the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 12th September, 2000 and it was fomaxded to the Principal (Secmtary, Watzr Resources Depatfment, Bhopal vide order dated 10m October, 2060 with a direction to apprise the further action. Thereaiier, after reorganization of the State of Madhya Pmdesh on 01“ November, 2000, the writ appellant med a representation to the Governor of Chhattisgarh annexing the appeal nled before the Govenmr of M.P. whirh Was referred for further action to the Sectetary, Department of Water Resources. However when no action was taken, during the pendency of the said depanmental appeal, the writ appellant med Writ Petition No.6592/2006 seeking inter-aha the relief for quashjng the impugned punishment order damd 29.5.2000 but the same was dismissed on the gmnnrl that the petin‘oner harl approached without availing the lemedy of appeal and it was observed that he may pmfer the appeal before the appellate authority and after disposal of the appeal, if exigency arises, may approach this Court to step in under Article 226 of the Oonsh'tution of lndia. That order was passed on 04. 12.2006. 5. Pursuant to the said order, the writ appellant nled another appeal before the Governor of Chhatn'sgarh on 23.01.2007 whirh was rejected vide order dated 13.04.2007 on the ground of limitation. Thereaiter, the writ appellant preferred a Writ Petition No.3749/ 2007 seeh'ng inter-aha the relief for quashing of the order dated 13.04.2007 sigred on 19.04.2007 (Annexure P~ @ @ 13) and other consequential mlieils) including for quashing of the impugned onier of punishment. The said writ petition was dismissed in default on 12m of July 2007, against whieh an aRplication (M.C.C.No.4 10/2008) under Onier 9 Rule 4 of C.P.C. for recalling the onier dt. 12.07.2097 passed ini W.P.3749/ 2007 was nled, which was also dismissed on 24¢ of March, 2009. Thereaiier, the writ appellant aled another writ petition being W.P(S).. No.3639/ 2009, in whirh he had not sought the relief'of quashingethe order dated 13.04.2007 passed in appeal by the Governor, rather directly prayed for quashing the impugned order 29.05.2000 with further direch’ons to the repondents to release 5 withheld increments; salary and other consequential benedts and giant the peu'u'oner all the benehts Whirh have been granted to the persons‘immediately junior to him. That wn't peiin‘on was dismissed vide order dated 06.01.20 10 by learned Single Judge holding that once the application for restoration of W.P(S).No. 3749/2007 was dismissed on 24.03.2009 on the ground of unexplained delay and laches, the subsequent writ petition was not maintainable as the relieils) sought for and the mounds raised in the earlier writ petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution and in the instant petition are the same and as the petin'oner had not chosen to die any appeal pursuant to the order dated 24.3.2009, the same attained finality and that writ petition was not maintainable and was // acconiingly dismissed. / @ Being aggrieved by the oxder dated 06;01.2010 passed in W.P(S) No.3639/ 2009, the appellant filed writ appeal being W.A.No.44/2010 in which the Older against whirh the pmsent review petition has been med was passed on 08th 6f April, 20 10 holding that no person should remain remediless’ and the appeal before the Govemor of Chhattisgarh was held to be h'me barred whereas the fact still remains that the writ appellant has already med appeal before the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 12.09.2000 which was referred to the concerned Secretary for apprising further action vide order dated 10. 10.2000 issued by the Governor Secretariat (MP). Though the writ appellant did not make a prayer in his latest writ petiiion i.e., W.P(S).No. 8639/2009 for quashing the order passed in departmental appeal holding it time barred but in his Hist writ pe11'tion(W.P.S.No.6592/ 2006), this Court permitted the writ appellant to again visit this Court under Article 226 after the disposal of the appeal and the petitioner approached this Court by 61mg another writ pe‘h‘iion making prayers except the prayer for quashing the order passed in appeal, which was prayed for in earlier writ petition, which was dismissed in default. 10. This Court preferred to direct the respondents in the writ peh'tion to decide his orig'nal appeal filed before‘ the Governor of M‘P. which was referred vide order dated 10.10.2000 for follow-up acu‘on. Need less to mEniion that State of Chhattisgarh waslreorganized on 01.11.2000 and therefore after referring the matter for appropriate action on 10.10.2000 to the concerned Secretary by the 'M.P. Governor @ Secxetariat, all such pending appeals should have been referred to the Governor of Chhalljsgarh after 1. 11.2000 and thus in our opinion it was not proper on the part of the Governor of Chhattisgarh to mject the appeal on the gromid of limitation While in fact the \appeal was tiled as back as on‘ 12.9.2000 that is wen before the mmgam‘zation of the State of M.P. ahd creation of the new State of Chhatt‘ garh and- therefore in the interest of justice, we passed the order without going into the merits of the case and declined to interfere in the impugned order of punishment passed on 20m May, 2000 and other reliefs sought in the writ petition as there was no impediment for the Governor of / Chhattisgarh to decide the appeal which was hled on 12.09.2000 before the Governor of M.P. prior to the reorganization of the State. 11. Nothing has been explained as to what was the hitch in deciding the appeal of the appellant which is pendingsinoe long. This is not the case of the State that the appeal nled in 2000 has been disposed of, therefore, for all the purposes, we have to presume that the appeal of the writ appellant is pending sinr‘e 2000 and thus it cannot be said that the representation made subsequently in the year 2004 or the appeal filed pursuant to this Court’s order were supplement to the original appeal tiled in the year 2000. Therefore, the subsequent writ petitions were maintainable mpm so when the prayer made in earlier W.-P(S) No.3749/2007 for setting aside the order dated 13‘11 [19“: April, 2007 rejecting the ‘ appeal being h'me barred “was dismissed in dehult, but in the subsequent petition that relief was not claimed however s t / in the mixess of things wg thought it appropriate not to decide the case of the writ appellant on merits during the. pendency of his appeal before the Governor since 2000. Therefoxe, we did not inteltfexe on merits of the case and directed that appeal be decidedon merits and hence we do not find any ermr apparent on the face of Incord and see no good gmund to intexfere in the order dated 08.4.20 10 passed in Writ- Appeal No.44] 2010. 12. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. Sdl- LM.Quddusi Judge ’ ‘ Sd/~ Prashant Kumar Mishra‘ .f . r