Shri Krishan Pal vs Union Of India
2010 Latest Caselaw 3219 Del

                                                                                 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?



                                JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)

CM No. 11929/2010 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

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

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