1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 103 of 1997 AD RAM V/S STATE & ORS Mr. D.K. Parihar, for the appellant. Mr. B.L. Bhati, Addl. G.A., for the respondents. Date of Order : 23.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition summarily, by observing, that it was not disputed, that if claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the appropriate government may refuse to make reference, and there is no bar for not making the reference. Then it was found, that admittedly, in the instant case, the appropriate government has refused to make reference on account of the fact, that the same was raised after six years, without explaining any sufficient cause. Arguing the appeal, it was contended that merely on the 2. basis of delay, the government could not decline to make reference, as the delay could be the factor, which might be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the relief, and thus, the order of the learned Single Judge is bad. We find on record, that in this appeal reply has been filed, pleading inter alia, that the petitioner appellant was appointed as “Beldar” on daily wages basis on muster- roll, in the month of June, 1987, and he did not attend the work on his own accord since September, 1988. Then, a chart has been given about the actual number of days on which he worked, and the total number of days on which the appellant is said to have worked are only 132 days. Then, it is also pleaded, that in the month of August, 1990, the appellant approached the Labour Court for payment of due amount. The Labour Court vide its judgment dated 24.9.90 directed to pay the petitioner the amount due, and in compliance of the said judgment, a sum of Rs.500/- was paid vide Annexure- R/2, and this fact has been concealed by the appellant. Then, it is also pleaded that the appellant also moved another application on 18.1.90, for being declared semi- permanent, but did not pursue that application, likewise; the aspect of delay was also highlighted. The respondents have also produced the muster-rolls, in support of their stand about number of days on which the appellant is said to have worked, and after filing of the reply, this factual 3. aspect has not been controverted by the appellant. In such circumstances, in our view, when the appellant has not completed 240 days, in view of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including that in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in JT 2006(4) SC Page 420, it cannot be said, that any useful purpose would be served by directing the State Government to make reference, by exercising powers under Article 226 jurisdiction, in favour of the appellant. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal, is therefore dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. ms rathore