IRESPONDENTS v: 1. State of Chhattlsgarh Through The Secretary, % 'Government of Chhattlsgarh Department ()f' Revenue DKS Bhawan Mantralaya Ralpur ’ I . \ HIGH COURT 0F,CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ Writ Petitimg‘sy No; 4506 of 2008 . Mangal Ram Mlshra Retlred Revenue Inspector (RI) O/o of the Collector Land Records Branch Bllaspur‘ R/o B1laspur Dlstrlct Bllaspur (CG) VERSUS . , ; _ Chhattlsgarh i 2. The Commlssmner Land Records Ralpur (CG) 3. The Deputy Comm1ss1oner Land Records Bllasput (CG) 4. The Collector D1str1ct Bllaspur Chhatt1sgarh (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB Hon'ble Mr Satlsh K Agmhotrl, J ) Present : Shr1 V Vljay, Advocate for the pet1t10ner Shr1 M P S Bhatra Deuty Govt dvocate forthe tat. p A Se I ORAL ODER (Passed on 18““ day ofVAugu'st, 2008) Wlth the consent of the partles the matter 1s taken up for hearmg hnally Learned counsel appearlng for the petrtloner submlts that the petltlonel I has completed 24 years of servrce on 23 01 94 The petltloner was mltlally appomted on 24 01 1970 on the post of Patwan as 1s ev1dent; ‘ from the appllcatlon filed by the pet1t10ner for grant of kramonnattli (Annexure P/3) However there 1s no document on record t0 show the I 1n1t1al date of appomtment of the petltloner. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per circulars dated «I f 24 04 06 read w1th 17 03 99/19 04 99 the pet1t10ner ls ent1tled to grant of second kramonnatl after completlon of 24 years of serv1ce Plrstly, the c1rculars have come mto ex1stence after the pet1t10ner has g r completed his 24 years of service. Thus, the benefit cannot be given effect from the date he'has completed 24 years of service. Secondly“ v PE I‘IT1:0NER : Ganga PraSad Mishra aged about 60 years S/o Shll l R promotlon and on account of lack of vacancy the}; could not be z nromoted er a peno o 14 ear The petltloner has superannuated on attaining the age of 6O year e l 'lt‘hls petltlon 1s filed on 12 08 08 1e ‘ petltloner has not submltted any explanauon for such a long dcla s Th _ It 1s well settled that H1gh Court 1n exerc1se of Its dlscret1on does no . 01dmar1ly ass1st the tardy and the Indolent or the aculescent and the letharglc as the belated approach may have the effect of mfhctlng not nly hardshrp and 1nconven1ence but also Injust1ce on thlrd partles {See Jagdlsh Naram Maltlar Vs The State of Blhar & others S Sadasrvaswamy Vs State of Tamll Nadu State of M P & Others r P ] Vs Nandlal Jalswal and others Burn Standard Co Ltd & Others Vs Dlnabandhu MaJumdar & another an lKamataka Power Corporatlor Vs gg oth V V V / V r Ltd through 1ts Chamnan & Manaln D1rector & aner s K ’Thangappan & another } The pet1tloner cannot be granted any rehef at th1s stage ThIS writ petltlon deserves to be and 1s accordlngly dlsmlssed on the ground of nordlnate delay as well as merl I t ‘ t l l I l is‘ K Agnihot ’ ‘ n AIR 1973 sc 1343 ZAIR 1974 sc 2271 3 1986 (4) soc 566 ' 1995 (4) scc 172 2006 (4) scc 322 > ‘ d f y ‘i y ‘ t , ‘ q o , a, . ; ‘l Qth ri J 5 '