Phirtu Ram Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2171 of 2018 Phirtu Ram Patel S/o Late Shri Chamar Singh Patel, Aged About 73 Years, Occupation- Retired Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gharghoda, R/o Village Kotmi, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Development Commissioner Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.,

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raigarh District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

6. Office of The Jandarshan, Through its In-charge Officer, Raipur Under The Controlling of The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Barik, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 08/03/18 1.

The present is a repeated writ petition by the petitioner for grant of benefit of his first and second higher pay scale (Kramonnati) as per circular dated 17.03.1999 and 11.01.2010.

2.

Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being WPS No. 441/2009 which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 23.01.2009 with liberty to seek redressal of his grievance by making representation to the respondents. After withdrawal of the said writ petition, the present second writ petition is now being filed after more than 9 years, i.e. on 01.03.2018, seeking for the same relief. It cannot be lost for sight that petitioner retired / superannuated from service on 30.06.2005. Even the writ petition earlier filed was after more than 4 years from the date of superannuation i.e. in the year 2009 and the present writ petition has been filed after more than 13 years of superannuation i.e. in the year 2018. As such the petition suffers from delay and laches and it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 3.

Needless to mention that reluctance of this Court in entertaining the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner for redressal of his grievance before the respondents in accordance with the circular issued by the State Government.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Priyanka