Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Satyam Maurya, learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents.
(2.) FACTS in brief as submitted by learned Counsel for Petitioner are that Petitioner appointed on the post of A.N.M., by order dated 16.02.1987 passed by Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, she submitted her joining on the same day and a letter issued to her to join on the post in question, however as she fallen ill, so sent leave application to Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, when recovered from illness submitted a representation to Respondent No. 4 to allow her to join duties in the year, 1989 but till date no heed paid in the matter in question inspite of repeated requests made by Petitioner in this regard, hence present writ petition filed with following main prayer: Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding the Respondents to take joining of the Petitioner and pay salary regularly each and every month.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and going through the record, I do not find good and sufficient grounds given by Petitioner in the instant case in approaching this Court for redressal of her grievances at belated stage in view of which the delay in filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be condoned rather the reasons which have been given by Petitioner are not sufficient in view 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.;