IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 509 of 2011 Nazma Khatun ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. M. C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri M. C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was a nurse in a Primary Health Centre. She was transferred from Primary Health Centre, Annu, Chakrata, Dehradun to Primary Health Centre, Uttarkashi, in the year 1991. According to the petitioner, her joining was not accepted by the concerned authorities at Uttarakashi and thereafter, she made a representation to the concerned authorities, but no action was taken on her representation. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition after a period of twenty years with the following prayer: “A. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take final decision in the matter of petitioner and to permit her to work along with all consequential benefits and to determine her status in service. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the effect and operation of impugned order dated 28.6.91 after calling the entire record from the respondents. C. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner along with all service benefit had it been the order dated 28.6.1991 and 11.6.2009 were never in existence. 2 D. Issue appropriate order or direction suitable in the nature to award damages and malafide act of the respondents, be which the petitioner is facing grave mental agony and financial hardship and the amount of the damages and compensation which may be quantified by this Hon’ble Tribunal and further be directed to the respondents the amount to be recovered from the salary of the erring officer. E. Issue any other suitable direction or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. F. Award costs of the claim petition to the petitioner.” It is too late in the day for this Court to hear any prayer of the petitioner. This writ petition is highly belated and liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. Merely because her representation for grant of some relief, which was made on 21.5.2009 stood rejected on 16.6.2009, will not be a ground to condone the inordinate delay in filing of the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches and is hereby dismissed. No order is as to costs. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 27.5.2011 Kuldeep