Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.A. Khan, learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondents.
(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that as per the relief as claimed by Petitioner in present writ petition the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground delay and laches as no good and sufficient reasons whatsoever given by him in the instant case on the basis of which the delay in filing the same for redressal of his grievances be condoned, liable to be dismissed on the said ground. After hearing learned Counsel for parties and going through the record, the main relief claimed by Petitioner in the present case is quoted as under: Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to make the payment of deputation allowance along with interest w.e.f. 11.06.1985 to 18.01.2008 i.e. the period the Petitioner has worked as Staff on deputation in the Ayurvedic Department.
(3.) FURTHER , on the basis of pleadings as made by the Petitioner in present case neither good nor any sufficient reason given by him to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances at belates stage rather the grounds which are taken by him in the present writ petition on the basis of which the delay is sought to be condoned are not sufficient in order to enable him to file present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances at belated stage in view of the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648 after relying on the earlier judgment passed in the case of Shivdas v. Union of India : (2007) 9 SCC 274 the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph 6 has held as under: The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustice, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weights with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.;