KAILASH CHAND GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT intra -Court appeal arises out of the order dt. 11.03.1999 passed by the ld. Single Judge primarily on the pretext that the appellant worked for 17 months as a Cook on part time basis and admittedly as per his own allegations made in the writ petition, his services were terminated on 15.04.1995 and the writ petition came to be filed on 05.03.1999 almost after four years and since the delay & latches could not be satisfactorily explained by him, the writ petition was dismissed in limine. Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant joined his services as a Cook on part time basis on 22.11.1993 and worked upto 15.04.1995 and his services were terminated arbitrarily without compliance of the due process of law and since the writ petition No. 1851/1995 filed by him prior thereto regarding regular pay was pending consideration, he was under the bonafide belief that even if his services are dispensed with that will be taken note of while disposing of the said writ petition and immediately when he came across with the situation that the termination has to be independently assailed before the Court of law, the appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 1156/1999 which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay by the ld. Single Judge vide order dt. 11.03.1999 which is impugned in the instant appeal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even the initial appointment of the appellant was not in conformity with law, however, he worked for 17 months for intermittent period and as per the policy laid down by the State Government regarding regularization of such employees who were working on daily rated/part time basis as on 01.05.1995 with certain other conditions incorporated by the State Government under its scheme.

(3.) AFTER going through the record and taking note of the submissions made, we are also of the view that the delay caused in filing of the writ petition of almost four years has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant and once his services were terminated for whatsoever the reason on 15.04.1995, he had a remedy to approach the Court of law; and assailing after inordinate delay will certainly dis -entitled him in assailing the termination given effect from 15.04.1995.