smug 3mm Z IN THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT' BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION No. 9L82'0F 2mg / PETITIONER .crom n30! K, Dr. Yeeshu Prasad Masih, aged about 75 years, Son of Late Shri Baldev Prasad Masih, Ex-Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, Resident of Qr. No. 125, Paradise Complex, Borsi Bhata, Durg (C.G.). VERSUS ESPONDENT r’ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). ‘State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Health and Family yVeifare, Valiabh Bhawan, Bhopal I (M.P.). The Director, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathic, Raipur (C.G.). /2.I The Superintendent cum District, Ayurved Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.). / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE ATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE ATTER §RS C N M Q g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wri‘r Pe'l'ifion No. 2182 of 2006 ' Peti'rioner' Dr. Yeeshu Pmsad Masih Versus Responden‘l's Sfa‘l'e of Chha'r‘risgarh & ofhers Singie Bench: Hon*ble Mr. Jus'rice satish K. Agnihowi. Ms. Suni‘l'a Jain, Pane! Lawyer for fhe Sfa‘re/r-espondenfs. The foliowing order of fhe Cour-1' was passed by Sa‘tish K. Agnihofr'i, J. ORDER {Passed on 7’“ Day ef February, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for The pefi‘rioner submifs Tha‘l’ The petitioner was appoin‘red on 1’he p0s1' of Vaidya in fhe year 1958. The posf of Vaidya was renamed as an AssisTan‘r Ayurved Chikifsa Adhikari with effec? from 1988. The pe‘ri'rioner refired from service on 31.12.1989 as an Assistant Ayurved Chiki‘tsa Adhikari. The pe‘ri'i'ioner has filed fhis wri‘i' pe'rii'ion claiming arrears of salary w.e.f. 01.04.1988 1’0 31.12.1989 wi‘rh‘ inferes‘i' wi‘i’houi' explaining inordinafe delay. The pe'ri‘rioner has filed This wriT peTiTion afTer a belaTed period of 17 years. IT is well seTTled principle of law ThaT The beIaTed peTiTion cannoT be considered when everyThing has been seTTled and The peTiTioner is PresenT: Mr. 5anTosh BharaT, AdvocaTe for The peTiTioner. no‘r in a posi‘rion 'ro explain as‘ro why he has faker! abouf 17 years in filing This pe'l'i‘rion. If is well sef'l'led nrincinle r r of law in view of The decisions of The Supreme Cour? in fhe cases of Jaqdish Namin Mahiar Vs. The Smfe of Bihar and ofhersl P.5. Sadasivaswami Vs. S‘ra‘i'e of Tamil Nadu 2 and Karna‘raka Power Corporation L‘rd & Anr. Vs. V.K. Thanqappan & Anna, Thai repeated represen‘rafions cannoi' jus‘rify a beia‘red approach To The Cour‘rs. Enteriaining beia‘red approach would unse‘Hle fhe sewed mortar-s, and ‘rhe some should be avoided. As a result for fhe aforesaid reasons, ihe pe’rifion is dismissed as noT main'rainable on fhe ground of delay in approaching This Cour-f. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 {(1973) 1 SCC 811} 2((1975) 1 SCC 152) 3{(2ooa AIR scw 1828} Subhash no‘r in a position To exphin as’ro why he has faken abou* 17 years in filing fhis pei'i‘rion. I‘r is well settled principle of law in view of ‘rhe decisions of 1'he Supreme Cour‘r in The cases of Jugdish Nomin Mal-riar- Vs. The Sfafe of Bihar' and o'lhers1 P.5. Sadasivnswami Vs. Sfai'e of Tamil Naduz and Karna‘i'aka Power Corporation L'rd éi Anr. Vs. V.K. Thanqappan & Arms! 'i'ha‘l repealed representations cannot justify a belated approach to the Courts. Entertaining belated approach would unsettle the settled matters, and the same should be avoided. As a result, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1{(1973) 1 scc an} ‘ \ 2{(1975) 1 scc 152) 3{(2006 AIR SCW 1828} Subhosh