1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.2/2010 Municipal Council, Bhilwara Vs. Nandlal .... Date of Order :: 9th April 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.T.S.Champawat,for the appellant. ..... BY THE COURT Though the matter has been placed for orders on the application (IA No.4706/2009) moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, however, having regard to the circumstances of the case, while ignoring the delay, we have considered the appeal on merits. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.09.2008 as passed in CWP No.320/1996 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent (writ- petitioner) for regularisation on the post of Pump Driver with effect from 01.08.1988; and if he be found suitable and there be no reason not to regularise with effect from the said date, to pass appropriate order and to give consequential benefits. The writ petition aforesaid was filed essentially with the submissions that though the writ petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the year 1980, he was assigned from time to time the work of Pump Driver along with one Ismile Khan; and that the 2 said incumbent Ismile Khan retired on 31.07.1988 and thereafter, he ( the writ petitioner) was constantly working as Pump Driver but was not regularised though the post was lying vacant. The learned Single took note of the facts and circumstances and observed that since the writ-petitioner had been working for a long as Pump Driver and was working at least from 01.08.1988, after retirement of Ismile Khan, regularly against the sanctioned post, the appellant ought to have considered his case for regularisation; and asking an employee to work against the particular post in ad hoc manner for a long period was an unfair labour practice that could not be countenanced. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed as under:- “Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent Municipal Council, Bhilwara is directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Pump Driver with effect from 1.8.1988. If he is found suitable and there is no reason not to regularise with effect from the said date, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard and give consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.” The learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to argue that the learned Single Judge has been seriously in error in directing regularisation of the writ-petitioner on the post of Pump Driver and such directions for regularisation ought not to have been given. 3 We find the appeal totally baseless and bereft of substance. The learned Single Judge, before issuing the directions aforesaid has noticed the fact of the writ-petitioner having been working against the sanctioned post for an abnormally long period. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the writ as issued by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the case of the writ-petitioner and for according regularisation from 01.08.1988, if he be found suitable and if there be no reason to deny, remains unexceptionable. We are unable to find any error or illegality in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge so as to warrant interference in this intra-court appeal. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (A.M.Sapre),J. s.soni