1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 353 of 2009 HIMMAT SINGH V/S THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Mr. MAHESH THANVI, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 6.4.2009 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE SHRI NP GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- The appellant was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk with Municipal Board, Nagaur, and alleges to have worked there upto September 1988, however vide order dated 30.9.1988, he was transferred to Municipal Board Kuchera, and alleges to have joined the duties there. However in the year 1990 on account of ailments with which he suffered, he could not discharge his duties for sometime. His physical handicapedness, coupled with the ailments restrained him from attending the duties, and he duly informed the concerned authorities about this ailment. However, in the meantime, the Board was constituted, the Chairman whereof was not happily disposed and taking advantage of petitioner’s absence, device was designed to accommodate his own blue eyed persons, and in that process, on 1.11.1990 resolution was adopted that since the appellant is absent from duty for long period, he may be sent to the Directorate, and accordingly, an 2 order was passed relieving the appellant on 29.11.1990. The case of the appellant is that he reported before the Director but was not permitted to mark attendance there, and was not permitted to resume duties to Kuchera either. Being aggrieved, he submitted revision petition before the Deputy Minister, which came to be rejected on the preliminary ground of lack of jurisdiction. What we find from the papers available on the record is that the appellant was voluntarily absent from 27.2.1990, and despite repeated letters, neither they were responded, nor did he report on duty apart from the fact that even before February, he absented for 15 to 20 days. Likewise, from a look at the memo of revision filed by the appellant before the Deputy Minister, produced as Annexure-5, it is clear that it is neither alleged therein that it was on account of his ailment that he could not discharge his duties for sometime, nor is it alleged that the action was taken by the Chairman with intentions as projected before this Court in the writ petition, or that he had duly informed the authorities during his absence. This clearly shows that the appellant has cooked up an entirely new story before this Court. This is apart from the fact that neither the Chairman has been named, nor has he been impleaded as party respondent. Apart from the above, it is also not in dispute that Annexure-5 revision was also filed only in the year 1997, and that having been dismissed vide order, Annexure-7, way-back on 6.3.1998, the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 3 2006. Thus, the appellant is clearly guilty of delay and latches. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. It was then contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being handicapped person, some latitude should be given to him. We are afraid, no further latitude is required to be given to him only on account of the fact that he happens to be a handicapped person. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the appellant’s writ petition. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. ( NP GUPTA ),J. ( DEEPAK VERMA ),C.J. /tarun/