Dismissed

Dinesh Lal Srivastava v. Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway,Gorakhpur and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2018WRIA/20633/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of Central Administrative Tribunal orders and salary compensation. The dismissal was based on the writ being barred by laches due to delayed filing after High Court dismissal and prior liberty was granted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

Dinesh Lal Srivastava Vs Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway,Gorakhpur and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20633 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dinesh Lal Srivastava Respondent :- Union Of India Through The General Manager, North Eastern Railway,Gorakhpur And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Srivastava,Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Vikash Chandra Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Triloki Singh appearing for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the judgement and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.04.2016 as well as the order dated 24.05.2016 with a further direction that he be paid salary between the intervening period from 17.02.2013 to 21.02.2013 treating him to be in active service.

¶7

The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 59379 of 2016 in the High Court which he got dismissed with liberty to file a fresh writ petition vide order dated 20.12.2016. After that, this writ petition has been filed now on 02.09.2018 after one year and nine months. The laches are sought to be explained in paragraph 35 of the writ petition by stating that his wife was suffering from jaundice and was advised complete bed rest. This does not explain what prevented the petitioner from filing the writ petition in the High Court at the relevant point of time when he was granted liberty by the High Court to file a fresh writ petition.

¶8

We may also note that the learned Senior Judge of the Division Bench, who had passed the order dated 20.12.2016 has retired from service in June 2018 and only thereafter this writ petition has been filed. The reason for not filing the writ petition at the relevant point of time and filing it only after the retirement of the learned Senior Judge appears to be a Bench-hunting tactic of the petitioner.

¶9

We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition as barred by laches.

¶10

Order Date :- 25.9.2018 A. V. Singh

Dinesh Lal Srivastava v. Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway,Gorakhpur and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Dinesh Lal Srivastava v. Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway,Gorakhpur and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sony Kanojiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pratap Singh Vs State of U P through Secretary PWD and 3 Others

Vijay Shyam Pal and 10 Others Vs Union of India through Secretary, Department of Higher Education and 4 Others

Naveen Chopra Vs Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Narendra Kumar Vs Central Bank of India , Central Office, through Its Chairman and Managing Director and 4 Others

Dr. Shashikala Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others