IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.I WRIT APPEAL N0. M'5~ OF 2010 APPELLANT f^'^i-e "rw^ RESPONDENTS ^.••" \^^ ^y^y o-' ^;^-,^ <^..</^v' ./•"".€^" ,..--^^-' ^- 4, Onkar Nath Pandey, aged about 80 years, Son of late Mordhwaj Prasad Pandey, R/o Village Adbhar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Education Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (C.G.) Now State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Bhopal (M.P.) Deputy Director of Education, Janjgir, District Bilaspur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) The District Education Officer, Bilaspur(M.P.) (Now C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2. SUB-SECTION fl) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH^ ACT,2007 ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusiand Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar hflishra Writ Appeal No.117 of 2010 Appellant Onkar Nath Pandey Versys Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others Present: Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel forthe appellant. " - "^ -: Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. WritAR&eaLunder Section 2(1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon 29th April, 2010) Per I.WI. Quddusi. J.: Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2. This writ appeai has been filed against the impugned order dated 25-3-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S.) No.11/2005 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 3. The writ appellant .challenged the.oi-d^F of absorption and fbr fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Headmaster/Upper Division Teacherwith effectfrom 1-4-1962. 4. In fact, he got the order of absorption in the year 1966 with retrospective effect, i.e., 1-10-1963 but he made representations and filed claim petition for the first time before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1 988. No explanation was there as to what was he doing from 1966 till 1988.Further;attherelevanttime;Whenthere ;?-s';5» ^•^""\. 't.; as®%, g ;i-t1 ^ssity^ g 'S i!< V? was no Administrative Tribiinal, at the most he could have filed a civil suit, limitation of which was available of only 3 years. . Therefore, when he did not avail the remedy of filing civil suit, later on filed claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1988, which was ultimately decided by registering a writ petition as Writ Petition (S.) No.11/2005, we do not see any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The writ appeal is without merit. Therefore, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. \ Prasha 3o|:al Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- •^KuinarMish ra