AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Lodh, J
Heard Mr. DK Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner was initially engaged as casual worker in the year 2003. It is the contention of the petitioner that the service of his juniors was regularized in the year 2010, but, at that time, the service of the petitioner was not regularized due to alleged in-difference of the government. The petitioner has agitated his grievance in the year 2021 and claimed for regularization.0
According to this court, the petitioner entered into service without following the established norms of employment and, further, the petition badly suffers from the doctrine of delay and laches.
I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.