LPA 457/2010 Page 1 of 3 65 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + L.P.A.457/2010 SHRI KRISHAN PAL ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with Mr. Akshay Chandra, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 12th July, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (ORAL) CM No. 11929/2010 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. LPA 457/2010 Page 2 of 3 L.P.A.457/2010 & CM 11930/2010 1. Present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 30th October, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) 12746/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed appellant’s writ petition on ground of laches as well as on merits. 2. It is pertinent to mention that both the Industrial Adjudicator as well as learned Single Judge have held that the appellant has not worked continuously for 240 days and further as the appellant’s appointment as a daily wager was for a specified project, he cannot claim regularization. 3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the appellant had completed 257 days of continuous service and accordingly, the appellant was entitled for regularization. 4. Upon perusal of the papers, we found that the present appeal is also barred by limitation inasmuch as there is a delay of 227 days in filing the same. Not only is the appellant’s present appeal barred by limitation but his writ petition was also filed one and a half years belatedly. 5. Keeping in view the fact that appellant has filed both the writ petition as well as the appeal belatedly and the fact that the disputed LPA 457/2010 Page 3 of 3 questions of fact are involved, we see no ground for interference especially when the Industrial Adjudicator has found that the appellant was employed for a specified project and the appellant’s service had been terminated way back in 1989. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 12, 2010 js