IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12810 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 21, 2009 Mohinder Pal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to decide representation dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure P-7) within a time bound period. On going through the petition, I find that without laying proper foundation in regard to prima facie right of the petitioner, the prayer has been made. The facts, as pleaded, are that the petitioner was recruited as Field Officer in CWP No.12810 of 2009 [2] Punjab Films and News Corporation in the year 1979. The said Corporation was wound up in 1992. The petitioner was offered either `golden handshake or absorption in some other Government department’. The petitioner preferred to be absorbed in Government department. The petitioner claims that he having passed M.A. in History and possessing a Post Graduate Diploma in Public Relations, was entitled to a post commensurate to his qualification. Be that as it may, the petitioner was given offer of absorption in Transport Department on the post of Clerk w.e.f. 9.4.1992. It seems that the petitioner accepted the said offer and is working continuously since then in Transport Department. It has been pleaded that this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.17266 of 1995 had directed the respondent-State to absorb the persons working in the Scheme that was under consideration of the Court in that case, on suitable posts commensurate with their qualifications which they possessed at the time of their retrenchment. I find that the first representation made by the petitioner is Annexure P-5 dated 13.7.2004. It thus transpires that the CWP No.12810 of 2009 [3] petitioner was satisfied with his absorption on the post of Clerk for 12 years whereafter the representation was filed. Learned counsel has not been able to show that the petitioner accepted absorption on the post of Clerk under protest or had protested within a reasonable period of time. The petition suffers from delay and latches. Such being the position, I do not find that the petitioner, prima facie, has any right to invoke the writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 21, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?