The primary contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition on the sole ground of delay inasmuch as byepassing the submission that in pursuance to high court’s order dated 17.10.2006, the rejection was given as late as in the year 2008 by the respondents and he immediately filed the present writ petition in the year 2009. On perusal of the impugned order, we are of the view that justified reasons were considered by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the present writ petition. Firstly, it was considered that the petitioner was engaged as a temporary labour in the year 1996 wherein he remained absent from his duties during the complete tenure and hardly worked for 34 days and his name was removed from muster roll as back as on 17.6.98. Further, it is observed that the petitioner approached this Court under the writ jurisdiction in the year 2009 almost after three years of the passing of Tribunal’s order. Thirdly, even if for the sake of argument, we assume that the cause of action in approaching this Court arose in the year 2008 of rejection of the representation then also for the present, the appellant is 50 years of age and is virtually touching the age of retirement and his
