The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for giving regular pay scale to the petitioner since the year 2001 up to the year 2011 and his regularisation be counted from 2001.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the Department of Forest at Gonda as Mali in the year 1988. It is submitted that State of U.P. has framed Regularization Rules, 2001 for Group D employees after the judgment passed in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal - Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998.
Learned counsel has submitted that for the regularization, the petitioner alongwith one Chandra Shekhar Singh filed Writ Petition No.4123 (SS) of 1998 which was decided vide order dated 03.08.1999 with direction to the competent authority to consider the regularization of the petitioners therein. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said order, Chandra Shekhar Singh has been regularized in the year 2000, however the petitioner has not been regularized.
It is submitted that the petitioner represented his case before the State Authorities by way of filing several representations. The State Authorities after considering his representation regularised the petitioner vide order dated 06.09.2011 from the year 2011.
Learned counsel has submitted that juniors of the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2000-01, however the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2011.
It is vehemently submitted that inspite of several representations for regularization of the petitioner since 2000-01, the respondents have not passed any order yet. He has invited attention of the Court towards his representation Annexure - 3 dated 05.01.2020 in which it is stated that the petitioner may be regularized from the year 2000-01.
It is submitted that the petitioner was not given the benefit of the regularization and he was deprived from his right due to inaction on the part of the respondents, therefore, this court may issue a mandamus to the respondents for regularization of the petitioner from 2000-01.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that the instant petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law. The petitioner has filed this petition after nine years and no substantive reason has been given to explain the delay.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2011 and he has accepted the same. There is nothing on record which shows that the petitioner has made any representation after 2011 and the only representation after 2011 is Annexure - 3, which is of the year 2020. It is submitted that such type of writ petition may not been entertained by this Court and the same may be dismissed with heavy cost.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On a specific query of the Court regarding delay, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner being villager was not aware of the process of law, therefore, the delay occurred, which is not acceptable. It is relevant to note that after passing of order dated 03.08.1999 (supra), the petitioner approached the concerned authority repeatedly till his regularisation in the year 2011, which he accepted. However, after regularization he did not agitate his grievance before the concerned authority for a long time and suddenly filed a representation in the year 2020 i.e. after nine years.
It is settled law that delay defeats equity. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time.
In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 nishant/-