D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner is claiming employment on the ground that his land was acquired by the respondents. The godown on the acquired land was constructed in 1979 it is alleged by Mr. B. S. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner that since 1979, he had been making representations and the respondents have been assuring the petitioner of giving appointment, but ultimately no appointment having been given, a writ petition bearing number 33713 of 1998 was moved. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 24th October, 1998 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. By the order dated 4th January, 1999, the representation was rejected. The said order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is this order which has since been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Pandey contends that by reason of the eligibility of the petitioner, the petitioner should be given appointment right from 1979 as has been prayed for in the writ petition in prayer (ii) as quoted below : "(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the appointment of the petitioner on Class III post with retrospective effect, i.e., 1979 granting him all the consequential benefit and also to pay him regular salary and other emoluments permissible under law." Mr. Pandey contends that the petitioner can maintain this very prayer because of the fact that cause of action has finally arisen on 4th January, 1999 after the writ petition was entertained and had been disposed of on 24th October, 1998.
(2.) Mr. Sharad Sharma learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the writ petition is belated one and, therefore, there cannot be a question of retrospective appointment.
(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.;