CWP No. 9277 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9277 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.5.2008 Vijay Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri P.C. Suman, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure P.8), whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services as Clerk, was declined. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Clerk on daily-wages, but his services were regularised as Beldar, in the year 2000. It is pointed out that the persons, who were appointed later than the petitioner as Clerks have been regualrised as Clerks and, therefore, the petitioner has been dealt with in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Earlier the representation submitted by the petitioner was ordered to be decided by this Court. In pursuance of the said directions, the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed. It has been pointed out in the order that the cases of the persons who are CWP No. 9277 of 2008 (2) allegedly junior to the petitioner stand on a different footing. Smt. Kamla was appointed on compassionate grounds, whereas Ms. Meenaxi, Mr. Sanjay Pahwa and Mr. Krishan Rattan were appointed by way of direct recruitment. It has further been pointed out that Ashok Kumar, whose services were reguarlised as Clerk on 1.2.1996 had been engaged as a Clerk w.e.f. 3.7.1992 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Sukhvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(2) RSJ 642, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed on permanent basis on the post of clerk from the date he was working on the said post. We do not find any merit in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. An order of regularisation of the services of the petitioner as Beldar was passed as far back as in the year 2000. If the petitioner had any grievance in respect of said regularisation, he should have approached the Court soon thereafter or within a reasonable period. The present writ petition has been filed almost after 7 years of the regualrisation of the services of the petitioner as Beldar. Therefore, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches. The fact that the petitioner remained silent for a long period after regularisation of his services as Beldar, belies the contention of the petitioner that he was working as a clerk at the time of regularisation of his services as Beldar. Still further, reliance of the petitioner on communications (Annexures P.5 & P.6) in respect of change of designation of two personnel from Beldar to Clerk, has been dealt with in the impugned order, wherein it has been pointed out that they have been subsequently appointed by way of direct recruitment. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the CWP No. 9277 of 2008 (3) reported case, the petitioner was ordered to be absorbed as clerk from the day he discharged the duties of Clerk, whereas in the present case, it is not proved that the petitioner has discharged the duties of the post of clerk. In view of the said fact, we do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the respondents, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 26-05-2008 ds