(T. ^<0< .1^ IN THE HIGH COUET OF JUDICATURE AT BILA^PUR (CHHATTISGAEH) W. P. N0333^hOF 2004 PETITIONER Gaurav Vishwakarma, S/o Omprakash Vishwakarma, Aged about 25 years, R/o R/oCollegeRoad,Akalatara, Tahsil - Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa [C.GJ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^<^^.\^ ^?Y ^\ -;^^ '^^' ygw- ^.^- ^,^" ?:. yi- --^ ^•^ ^. '\' i. r' 1^^. "fS-n^ 1 "^y' f',S}j| '«^" 2000 }s!lli ^&/ ^^y-i' ^s^-.. ^•^y^^^" 3- 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ofWomen & Child Development, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan,Raipur[CG] 2. Pariyojana Adhikari, JVtahUa Avam Bal Vilcas Pariyojana, Korba, District Korba [Chhattisgarh] Zila Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Adhikari, Bilaspur District Bilaspur [C.G.] \>" 4. State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretaiy, Department of Women & Child Developmeiit.VaIlabh Bhawan, Bhopal [M.P.] 5. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, PubUc Grievances & Pension (State Reorgamzation), 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATUEE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SmTABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS: WS^SS^SWIS 4 r ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3394 of 2004 Petitioner Gaurav Vishwakarma Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers Post for order on ^ May, 2006. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR {CHHATTISGARH) WritPetitJonNp.3394of2004 Gaurav Vishwakarma -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh & others Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate: Shri Sumit Verma, Panel Lawyer: None for respondent No.4. Shri S.K. Beriwal, Central Govt. Advocate: For petitioner. For respondents No.1 to 3. For respondent No.5. ORDER (Passed on c ^VIav. 2006) SATISH AGNIHOTRI. J. 1. The petitioner has fited this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment on the ground that his mother !ate Smt. Sudha Devi Soni, who was working as Supervisor with the respondent No.2, died on 21.1.1995 in harness. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, representetions made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground could not evoke any response from the respondents. Ultimately. the petitioner was constrained to file this petition on 20.9.2(%)4. It is \ ll estabNshed principle of law that the repeated representations cannot justify a belated approach. 3. The Supreme Court in the matter of KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ANR V. K. THANGAPPAN & ANR reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1828 held as under:- "The factual position as noted ab<we cteariy shows that for nearly 2 decades the respondent No.1- workman had remained sitent. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appeitants even in the representations made in 1997 and 19^ there was no reference to the representations claimed to have been made in 1982 and/or 1989. Even ifthat would have been made, there was considerable delay even jn making the representations. There is no dispute that mere maklng of representations cannotjustify a belated approach." The petitioner has not explained inordinate delay in filing this petition. 4. The Supreme Court while considering the delay in filing applications, in the matter of JAGDtSH NARAIN MALTIAR V. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (1973) 1 SCC 811, has observed as under:- "Thus it was in August, 1963 that the appellant discovered that his sen/ices were realiy determined for gross miscwiduct. For nearly 3 years thereafter he kept on submitting one memorandum after another to the Govemment and it was not until late jn 1966 that he flled a Writ Petition in High Court to challenge the order of removal. Th©memorials presented by him to the Government were in the nafcire of mercy petitions and he should have realized that in pursuing a remedy whteh was not duly appointed under th© law he was putting in peril a right of high value and significance. By his conduct he disabled the High Court from exercising »ts extraordinary powers in his favour. We are therefore of the opinion that the High Court was justtfied in refusing to entertain the petition." 5. Subsequently, in the matter of P.S. SADASIVASWAMI V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 the Supreme Court has obsen/ed as under:- "...............It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their p<wers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wjse exercise of discretjon for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it Qxpeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach tf»e Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioners' petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions te a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appedant's petition as wetl as the appeal." 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and Jn view of the observations made by the Supreme Court, the petttion deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed summarity. — Barve Sd/- Satish K. AgnUioCri Judge