r^^^^W^ yi'y^l^s'ti &""" cr (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT APPEAL N0.......^:.^....../2007 APPELLANT ^ yyy" ^••y..---" .^' \°y ^''.-' ^y. '"^y ^ RESPONDENTS Ku. Malti Yadav, aged about 52 years, D/o. Shri Roopchand Yadav, Occupation - Upper Division Teacher, Mata Rukmani Sewa Sansthan, Kanya Aashram, Mutanpal, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe & Backward Classes Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Tribal Department, District - Bastar (C.G.) 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 (10) (a) (2)0F CHAPTER XI OF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES.a99^ - 1ooS —" 2. 3. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BtLASPUR DjvisionBench Coram : Hon'bie Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J WRITAPPEAL N0.23 OF 2007 APPELLANT Ku. Matti Yadav, Versus RISPONDINTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Presefit: Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri B.D. Badgai^n, counss! for th®petstioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General for , respondents No. 1 and 2. None for other responctents; ORAiLORI3ER (Passed on 28th February, 2007) The following oral order of the Gourt \s^s passect by H.L. Dattu, C.J. Appellant before us was appointed as Assistant (^S Teacher/Upper DivJsion Teacher in aided instifcition. There ^ a revision of pay scale some time in the year 1 995. Since the benefit of revision of pay scaie was not given to the petittoner,she'had approached thss Court by fiting a petition sometime In the year 2006. Learneci single Judge had rejected the writ petition soiely on the ground of deiay and laches on the part of ttie petitioner In approaching ttiis Court mereiy after 11 yeam from the date of notification issued by the Central Governnrient. — 2) The discrettonary jurisdiction of this Court cannot b@ extsnded to a person who stept over her right. There is no explanation fnuch tess reasonabte exptanation by the petitioner nn approaching this Court for imptementation of the bene^t ©fthe notification merely after 11 y^ars from the date of i^uanGe of ttie notification. 3) In our opinion, the delay in filing the petition by the petitioner is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, the learned sin^e Jiadge had rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not see any @rrw m the orders passed by the leamed single Juctg®which vrould (^ill f@r interference by us. Accordingly the writ appeal Is reje<^d. Ordered accordingly. (\ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge