A-' HTOH CQURTOFGRHA'n'ISGAmiAT BILASPUR Writ PetftMwnfS) No.5112 ufZflO? PETFTIONER RE8PONDENTS CUiataram Tfaaldir, aged 50 years, Son of Late Shri SMnbhoolal Choukidar, Industrial Technical Institute, Bhilai, Tahsil andDistt. Duig(CG). - VERSUS , : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i tiie Secretaty, Hi^ier Education, Teclinical Educatitm aad Jan Shakti Niyojay Department Ministry DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Industrial TeclBrical Institirte, Bhilai, Distt Du% flirough ^theftincipal. 3. "Ilie MahyaPolytedmic, Hiilai, TIrou^ithePrincipal. ' 4. Sumendiram Aged 49 yeais Woricsh<^> atteidairt m, SAnjari, Dondilohara. 5. Ram Krishna Aged 45 yeais Assistatf Grade III Technical Education Director Bairan Bajar Mahila Polytechnic, Kaipur. CWMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA) (SB; Hffln'MeMr. Saddi K. Aemhotri. J.1 Present : Shri B-K. Chdaabarfey, Advocate for Ihe petitioner. Shri Satidtjupta, ©ovfAdvwate forlfae State. ORALORDER (PassedoHllth<»fRshruary,2COS) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fiir the petitioner submite tiat tiM p^itioner being a Scfaeduled Tribe candidate, is entitled to several fwotedions, witfiout specifying as to what protection Ifae petitioner is entitled to. Leamed counsel fiirthersuhnuts that some juniors were regularized oa 19.06.98. Consequently, the petitioner was regularized as Class IV enyloyee on 02.03.2000 (AnnexureP/5). 2. The petitiona' has not expressed his gievanees immediately after regularizatipn of his juniors, wlien sunilarly situated employees were regularized on 19.06.1998 (Atmesure P/3). Tlie petititner has fiirtfaer not raised any objecticai aflwhe was regiilarized m the year 2000. Raismgthe issue at fliis juncture, afta- a penod of7 yeara, may unsettle tiie eBtire system, cre^iedbycwders passetfeariier. <;. ^ ;<-( <•. 2 . 3. It is well settled principal oflawthat a person vAm has slept avec his rig^t is not artitledto aay sympafliy fiwmthe Coint Tlie petitioner has taken more than 7 years even after he was regularized on tfie post of Khalasi. The "1 . ! . petition has been fUed with inordinate delay without satisfactory eqdanation. 4. It is well setUed that Hig^i Court ia exercise of its disCTetiou does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indoleut or the acquiascent and the lethargic as the belated aiqiroachmayhavetheeffectofiDflictingnot (mly hardship as iaconvenience but alsoinjustice on tNrd parties. {See Jagdish Narain Maltiar Vs. The State of Bihar & olfaers , P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tanul Nadu2, State of M.P. & Otfaers Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, Biun Standard Co. Ltd. & Otfaers Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & anolher and Kamataka Power Cofporati<»i Ltd. through its Chauman & Matiaging Diredior & aiother Vs. K Thai^ajyan & anoth^}. 5. Thus, fliis petitioa deserves to be dismissed on the ground ofinordiaate delay, and is accordiagly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Asnihfltri Judge 27 1. Affi. 19B SC 1343 2. ADtl974SC2271 3. (1986) 4SCC 566 4. (1995) 4SCC 172 5. (2006) 4SCC 322 ^^^^^^^^^3^®^f;^^^^3°~S-?8