[2025:RJ-JP:2411] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12294/2014 Gyani Ram Son Of Shri Tirkha Ram, Patnia Mohalla, Ward No. 7, Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Social Welfare, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Department Of Social Welfare, Jaipur 3. Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Mahal Chowk, Alwar 4. Superintendent Government Ambedkar Hostel Boys Social Welfare Department, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar for Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/01/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner way back on 05.11.2014 seeking issuance of directions against the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Chowkidar in the Government Ambedkar Hostel (Boys), Social Welfare Department, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar. 2. The submission of counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was initially appointed as Chowkidar at Government Ambedkar Hostel (Boys), Social Welfare Department, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar [2025:RJ-JP:2411] (2 of 2) [CW-12294/2014] w.e.f. 01.06.2005 and he has been verbally directed not to come on job from the month of November, 2006, fundamentally for the reason that in place of petitioner, another contractual employee through NGO was engaged. 3. The submission of counsel for petitioner is such an action of the respondent is violative to Section 10 of the Contractual Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, hence, such an action of respondents be declared illegal and petitioner be allowed to continue his work on the post of Chowkidar. 4. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner and from perusal of record, this Court has observed that firstly, petitioner has not placed on record any order of his appointment as Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.06.2005 and secondly, it is an admitted case of petitioner that he was verbally removed from job from the month of November, 2006 whereas the writ petition has been filed on 05.11.2014 it means after a delay of about 8 years. The huge delay is unexplained too. Thirdly, petitioner could not establish his legal right to claim his contractual appointment, if any, to continue. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition, apart from suffering from delay and laches, lacks merit as well, hence, no relief in favour of petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 7. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /19