y ^ i^ {^Z__ HON'£LE S.B IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS 1 N0. ^1)1 / 2006 PETITIONER: ^ ^^ ^>^?-"^ ^"^y + -<..:- c^?-- 'cy ' ^6^-"" (^' Gazal Singh,^ S/o Shri Kamal Singh, Caste Mahar, Aged about 30 years, R/o Jamawada, P.0. Bademurma, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh^ Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Chief Executive Officer,^ Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) 3. Gram Panchayat Jamawada, / r* •\J K .^Y^ O.Biul" Through Sarpanch, Center Bhadraguda, P.0. Bademurma, BlockJagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE P^'^ICONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE If.? fe^ 7&. " w ^^ I-'S-"' NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBTION. CERTIORARI, AND ANY OTHER WRITS. DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. HISH COURT OF GHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : Hon'bl®Mf. Satish K. Aanihotr'i. J. W, P. (s5No. 6111 of 2006 Petitioner versus Raspondents &»zatSingh State of Chhatt-isgarh & others ^ 5hri Alok Dewangan, counsel for the petitioner. GR&ER (Passed on 8th November, 2006) 1. The petitioner was appointed os Shiksha l&rmi ©rade-IIIin the Shiksha Suarantee School Centre, Bhadraguda , B!ock •Jagdaipur, District Bastar by the resolution of the Grom Panchayat, Jamawada, temporarily for a period of one year at the fixed pay seale of Rs. 50Q/- per month. On completion of one year, the-serviceS of the petitioner came to an end. 2. According to learned counse! for the petitioner, arvice of the petitioners continued in the nextacademic »ssionalso, but no safary was paid to him. The petitioner has not filed any document in ajpport of his submission that the petitioner continued in the next academic session also. Eyen the next academic session came to an end on 8.5.1999. Leamed counsel for the petitioner furHier submits that severa' J' i<L representations were made by the petitioner, however, no record to thqt effect is produced. 3. Be that as it moy, the petition deserves to be dismissed on two grounds. prstly, the oppointment of the petitioner was temporary in noture and it was for a period of one academic session only. Secondly, the petition ccmnot be entertained after such a long inordinate detay in raising the issue. The petitioner had exptained the delay, not on any other ground, except that the petitioner has made several repreantations. 4. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court jn 1+ie ciise of Seeretary. Stats of Kamataka and CWiers Vs. Umadevi (3) and Othars held ^hat daily wager, ad hoc, temporary, contract employees appointed/recruited de-hors the constitutional scheme or not in accordonce with rutes ond other statutory provisions, have no right to continuation/absorption or regularization in the service. It was later on followed by the Supreme Court in seyeral decisions. Some of them are Accounts Officap (A&I) A.P. SRTC and Others Vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and Others, Swind®r Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rcyya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Othsrs . 5. On the ques+ion of delay, it ss well sett-led principle of taw in yiew of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of ^~ Itiar Vs. Th® Stat® of Bihor and athers ,P.5. Sadasivaswami Vs. Stat®of Tamil Nadu and Power Corporation Ltd & Aw. Vs. V. K. Thai^eypan & Aw. that repssteelceprasfeitations eannot justify a belated opproach to +he Courts. Entertaining belated approach would unsettle the settled motters, and the same should be ayoided. 6. Looking from all angies, this petition deserves to be ond is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 1. {(2006) 4 SCC 1} 2 {(2006) 7 SCC 488} 3 {(2006) 7 SCC 684} 4 AIR1995SC455 5 AIR2000SC 1650 6 AIR2000SG85