High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/11899/2017dismissed

Rajender v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2017-05-26Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

CWP-11899-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11899-2017 Date of decision: 26.05.2017 Rajender ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Dharamveer Phour, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 27.11.2014 (Annexure P-4) whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service was rejected.

Concededly, the earlier writ petition bearing CWP-10994-2014 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P-2), with a direction to respondent No. 2-Engineerin-Chief (PWD B&R), Haryana, to consider and decide the legal notice dated 20.02.2014 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order. Accordingly, the legal notice of the petitioner was decided by respondent No. 2 vide impugned order Annexure P-4. The petitioner did not raise any grouse against the said order Annexure P-4 till date except the instant writ petition filed on 24.05.2017. If the grouse of the petitioner had been genuine, he would not have kept Rishu Kataria 2017.07.04 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-11899-2017 -2quite for a considerable period, rather he would have adopted some legal recourse for the redressal of his grievance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner may be treated at par with that of (Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-14686-2015 ). The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceded to especially when the case of the petitioner is not at par with that of Suresh Kumar's case (supra). Since, the petitioner, after awakening from a great slumber, has filed this petition after two years, therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable on account of delay and latches and the same is dismissed as such.

May 26, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2017.07.04 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document