CWP (T) No. 2437 of 2008 25.2.2009 Present: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. The precise case of the petitioner is that he was to be regularized immediately after completion of 240 days after his initial appointed on 11.3.1977. He had earlier approached the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 873 of 1994 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was directed to be treated as representation. The Managing Director has passed the following order dated 27.1.1995: “Whereas Shri Ram Dhan, Clerk, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Bilaspur Unit filed an application OA No. 873/94 in the Hon’ble H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla. And whereas the Hon’ble Tribunal passed an order dated 15.07.1994, that the application be treated as representation to the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation for further decision. Whereas the representation aforementioned was considered by the undersigned. Now, the undersigned after careful consideration of the representation and all other relevant records finds no merit in the case and accordingly, the representation is rejected on the following grounds: i) The dispute pertains to the year 1978 and as such the case is hopelessly time barred. ii) That the applicant was given a fresh appointment w.e.f. 06.10.1978 and as such he can’t claim the continuity of service even as a daily waged employee. iii) His services were terminated before the decision for regularization of service of daily waged workers after 240 days was taken by the Corporation.” I have gone through the pleadings of the parties carefully. The office order dated 27.1.1995 passed by the Managing Director does not suffer from any illegality. The petitioner could not rake up the issue of regularization after 18 years. It is settled law that the stale matters cannot be adjudicated upon. In case the stale matters are adjudicated upon, it would unsettle the settled things. The petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances within a reasonable period and not after 18 years. The unexplained/inordinate delay is a factor which is required to be considered by the Court while deciding the writ petition. It is settled law by now that the Court will not entertain/adjudicate upon the writ petitions which are belated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nadia Distt. Primary School Council and another Vs. Sristidhar Biswas and others (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 779 has held as under: “In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980 and the petitioners approached the Court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal. Such persons should not be given any benefit by the Court when they allowed more than nine years to elapse. Delay is very significant in matter of granting relief and courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilant of their rights. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court condoning the delay of nine years cannot be countenanced.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 297 has held as under: “The High Court, however, in our opinion failed to take into consideration the effect of delay and laches on the part of Respondent 5 in approaching the High Court. A writ remedy is a discretionary remedy. The court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or laches, indisputably, are the relevant factors. The superior courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. While doing so, the Court although not oblivious of the fact that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition, but emphasis is laid that it should be filed within a reasonable time. A discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Consequently, in view of the ratio laid down by the judgments cited hereinabove, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. February 25, 2009. (cr)