amia mi "hmgw New WW m 200 mum (W) , Mifit Peti?ion under Art§cle 226 of *ihe Constimtion ’Qf Endia) "2%. RGwBi ifz.-1ia2¥3@$:- SW3 Ashsk Swamakar caunsei :‘05' ’(ha agaiifjenegl SM 9V Bhadwij Frame L wym §e Smefrespcndenia. Heard on admissiea. The paitigner has fiiM was me nf pmnn far Iasumg diram vn is: ‘ J $16 respondeni’rs 1:0 aRow EM pefii‘m'kar igcgnimue 2n sew/Ice in. muiatgr m3 ea‘ucated labou? on daiy waga$ basis and swséde? his case in? at p9s€cfse§3i$i4 l . N§3RA Mii‘EHM, J: 3V o *mwmgaw Me regi. $ E $§§§Li BER“ m mmwanéa WW#WW aiwmsr- ‘ PETm NER: v As? 0k Kumar Swamakar, aged acoui 43 years Sio iate Shri GP. Swamakar, R/a Cid caiiege Road, Near Mahadav Ghat, Ch’amga, {)és'ia’ict Jan'gir-Champa (C.G.)' RES?ONDENT$: 1. Stae o: Chha isaar’n through — Secremry, ' Pu he Works Deparmem, UKS. Bhavar. Ra! ur(C.G‘) 2‘ En ineea' m Chief, Pabiic Works Depesriment, Rai ur(C.G.§a 3‘ FK cuijve Eagineer, Publk: Works Departmeat, Di$irict Janjgir—Chamga 4 Su Hiv'amnm Officer; ?ub%§c Werks w arimen: 3ub Sivision NM, Champa, D§s act. “arug r-Champa (CQX WW;W. W W§Hi$ .......... ..... . ...... The case of the peiitianez i9, *hat he was aDmWed a3 many} Qubiic Worm Department at Champa as educated 1aboijrl§abaur empieyee 0n daiiy wages bpfwegn 194988 and 1’5 1219539 and ‘zhereafter @4—198g and 18-4-w 9 (A’menyure PM) He was enWed far reguiarizatia. as “Wthe c§muiarda£d§ (h January, 1§9D§nm®<ure 2) and oéher “cémmar daied 1g-2-19Q0 {Amexurs-PIE), however, his services 'weVe mat dug ts ban émpased agains‘: ragwarizsd camp§ete fresh appointment. The Stata Governmem a!$o sLabsequem!y issued c§mu1ara f0? continuatien and reguiariza§on 9f daiiy wages emg‘égyees th Vme Am“. u 5~Pl§ dated 25-5-1 2, , ‘nnexure—P/E dated 2O June 13% and Annexure-Pfg datad 10—12—19Q§‘ However, the case 0f we 1 petitioruer was mi censidered on the pfaieyt ‘tha? ihere was cowpiae ban. H3 Siat sf ’2 ‘ a 3ga'h vide cii’cuar dated ‘g‘h EVE rah, 2668 ‘ {Annexure-Pfm} Issued immatiena i0 the varieu$ departmenisfe? ¥egu€af§za€im gag daify wager$ cr'adhao’émpmyees. -%9 ha$ N1‘3miéied I; ?e§3reseniai§on fag' regLiiarizamn w 13—10-2908 (Annexme-PHiy ‘ L However, his Yepresentatian has; m3: Egem cmsédagd. Learned csunse) far the peiiéicner submiiied €‘nat in ithese drcumsiances the respondens be diresited i0 censidey vs may ’epresematic-n of Annexure-PH x ahd mke decision is? regu%a“iz§ng ha s cms m aroordghr‘e WWh he dwermns cartemed m OW “at 0f P: Amexwa I). The @eeient pet§iien hae 3 en §§ied hy the eetitione! afte: mefe ”a“ 18 yeare fmm ihe date ef his re .ovaé frem eemee. The emuars euee WW,W,W ‘ maw (W) mwm I .............. I ‘ mzoo ; merwm ammam mm 111%3 anaeT mm#wm aiWanéeT - ‘ upon by the petitioner were 1Q9Q. There was no §U$tifica such a hang time of 1.8 ye representation before the a; deiay of .18 yeaa's in approar? that in the caee o'f belated Deiay er teches is one 0f the Cowts when they exereiee tt 0f the Genet utton tn an apt Enveke its extraordinary pow on the patt ef the appticent to the lapse 0t time and ethe Qpposite party tn the inetant case, frq that the eetitiener had a ehert n the year 1988 and 1989. opinion that no exceptionat entertaintrzg the instant petitte‘ petition deserves to be diemts e eccerdtngty dtemiesedr me This Ceurf ' evcumsten Sd/- issued in the year 1990, 1992, 1996 end Eton for the writ petétioner to have waited fer Makjng tnority itserf camet he an exptanetion fer t is eettted prmcrptee of tew approach writ petttion hae to be dtsmissed‘ factors to be borne in mind by the Htgtt' tetr dieoreoonary eowers under Artiote 22$ =ropriate oaee the High Court may refuse to are tf there is euoh negiigence or omteetort aeeer‘t hrs rrohr ae taken rrt conumo on wrth - e eregudroe to tee are for aeeroeching this Ceurt. Dhirendra’ Mishra Judge m pteadings of the petitten,‘tt is ooeerved epeil Wtth the reepondente ee deity wager rt theee oiroumetancee, this Court is of the sircumetanoes exist m the present oeee for n after such a tong tapee of timer The writ sed on the ground of detey and taohee and :