AMRESH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Counsel for the parties at length and we are not persuaded to admit this writ petition. WE are, therefore, disposing of the same at the admission stage itself for the following reasons.

(2.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction from this Court directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the pay-scab of Class III employees and to absorb their services, consequent upon the winding up of respondent-Water Development Corporation, in the same scale.

(3.) THE last letters in this connection is addressed by the Chief Engineer to the Managing Director and is dated 23rd August, 1980. THE instant writ petition was filed on 8-11-1988. It was stated before us that the respondent-Corporation is in the process of being (sic) wound up. It exists only technically with a view to rehabilitate 2500 workers on its rolls for whom alternative employment is to be provided. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioners did not either challenge the earlier order of the Chief of Administration issued in the year 1979 nor did they approach this Court earlier, because the real reason for their approaching this Court at this stage is to seek benefit of being employed in a higher scale consequent upon winding up of the Corporation. THEre is, therefore, substance in the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition has been filed after a considerable delay and that no relief should be granted to the petitioners. We, however, do not propose to dismiss the writ petition on that ground.