The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a writ petition seeking implementation of a 23-year-old order granting employment. The court held that the petitioner's unexplained delay and filing a legal notice more than nine years after the relevant decision rendered the petition liable to be barred by laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.4315 of 2023
Decided on: 11th September, 2023
_________________________________________________________________ Kahan Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta & Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard .
3 . The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed
as Daily Wage Beldar by the respondents in the year 1997.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Immediately thereafter, his services were terminated. The petitioner challenged termination of his services by filing Original Application (OA) No. 2324 of 1998 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The O.A. was disposed of on 20.04.2000 by directing the respondents to treat the same as representation and to decide it within two months.
The petitioners has placed on record a copy of office order dated 20.06.2000, whereby respondent No.2/competent authority decided the representation for the petitioner and ordered to give him employment “as per availability of funds and keeping in view the seniority list of the daily wage Mazdoors on the basis of First Come Last Go.”
4. In the instant petition, prayer has been made to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to implement the aforesaid order dated 20.06.2000.
5. As per the pleaded case, the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage Beldar (Mazdoor) in the year 1997 and immediately thereafter, his services were terminated by the respondents. Pursuant to order dated 20.04.2000 passed in OA No.2324 of 1998, instituted by the petitioner, the
respondents decided his representation and ordered to give him employment as per the availability of funds and keeping in view seniority list of Daily Wage Mazdoors on the basis of ‘First Come Last Go’ principle. The said order was passed by the respondents on 20.06.2000. Twenty three years have gone by. The petition is seeking to implement the aforesaid order at this stage. The petitioner suffers from unexplained delay and laches. There is nothing on record as to what prevented the petitioner for taking appropriate steps at the relevant time i.e. from the year 2000 till date. The legal notice (Annexure P-3) statedly issued by the petitioner to the respondents is dated 04.012.2019 i.e. the same was issued more than nine years after the decision of his representation. Even from that date, almost four years have gone by. This writ petition cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. Petitioner has to suffer for his long sleep and not exercising his rights/availing appropriate remedy at the pertinent time. The relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted to him at this stage.
For the foregoing reasons, the present writ
petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous
application(s),if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
September 11, 2023
R.Atal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim implementation of an employment order dated 20.06.2000 after a delay of over two decades.
Whether the principles of laches and unexplained delay bar the exercise of court's discretion to grant relief in a long pending service matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kahan Chand
State of H.P. & Ors.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
