Hon’ble Shri Hon’b!e Shri Writ Petition (s) N PETlTiONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench: ~Versus- RESPONDENTS 1. Present: Mr. BP Rao. counsel for the petitiOnel'. India for the Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Asstt. Solicitor General of resondenis/UOL PM nhimm‘im Mishra J The petitioner was’initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Mana Group of Transit Camp in 1971. He Dhirendra Mishra, & R.N. Chandrakar‘ JJ o. 74$“! of 2009 Niranjan Roy S/o Late Shri Rashikiai Roy, Aged about 63 years, Retired Postal Assistant, Residing at: Ward No.1 . Panchsheei Nagar, Durg (CG) Union of lndia, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Poets, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. The Chief Post Master Generai, Chhattisgarh Circle, Clo The Chief Post Master General, Raipur - 492001 (CG) The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Durg Division, Civic Center, indira Piace, Bhilai, Pin: 490005 Distirct: Durg (CG) The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Caravs Building, Civil Lines, Jabalpur (MP) ORAL ORDER (26’; November, 201 O) was subsequently absorbed in the Postal Department vide order dated 315‘ July, 1980. He was granted One Time Bound Promotion (for short “OTBP“) on compietion of 16-years of service on 22.8.1996. He retired 'on attaining the age of superannuation o 315‘ March, 2005. 02. Grievance of the petitioner is that his services rendered in Mana Group of Transit Camp from 14.4. 1971 to 31.1.1980 had not been considered and he was granted benefits of OTBP and BCR scheme. His p n Original Application for the aforesaid relief Has been further dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order of Annexure P/9. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other persons were granted benefits under the aforesaid scheme. However, his claim has been rejected solely on the ground that he applied for those benefits with much delay of two years after his retirement, though he was also entitled for the benefits being similarly situated. 04. On the other hand. learned counsel for the respondent would argue that the Tribunal after considering the legal arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner has dismissed the application by a reasoned order and the same does not call for any interference. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties. O6. The Tribunal has dismissed ‘the Original Application with an observation that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31 St Maroh‘ 2006, he accepted his retrial benefits without any demur, he submitted his representation only on 15.52008 for the relief which he has claimed in the application and in the representation also he did not mention that he had fiied any representation while he was in service. in these circumstances. it has been observed that those who sleep over their rights during service period, accept all retrial benefits without any demur cannot be allowed to wake up after retirement and passing of more than two years to make representation without there being any subsequent development, giving any fresh cause of action. “’ D7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, weare satisfied that the Original Application has been dismissed by a reasoned order by assigning cogent reasons. 08. ln the result, we find‘no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. , , ._. _WR j l i Dhirendra sar— Mis'iuja Judge Sd/— R.N. CHANDRAKAR. Judge jWrJ’TI ‘