The High Court at Ranchi dismissed a writ petition challenging an order regarding termination of temporary service. The Court held that the petitioners slept over their rights for over 15 years, making gross delay and laches applicable, thus refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
The writ petition is dismissed.
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 JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 584 of 2008
.....
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
… For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Adv. For the Respondents : - M/s Bharti Kumari, JC to Sr. SC-I
04/05.03.2014
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners, in the present writ petition in the year 2008, are challenging reasoned order contained in Memo No. 1398 dated 07.12.1993 which was passed pursuant to the observation made in the petitioners' own writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6819 of 1991. The petitioners' services were terminated vide order dated 11.01.1989. He was appointed on purely temporary basis on the post of Clerk by the order of District Education Officer, Sahibganj, which is at Annexure-1 dated 17.06.1988.
The petitioners perhaps were waiting for outcome of another writ petition preferred by one Sadanand Thakur, who was incidentally appointed in the year 1989 and was subsequently terminated in the year 1997. He was also reinstated in service by the order of Regional Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 29.12.1997. Again his services were terminated vide Memo dated 24.12.1999. The said person had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1752 of 2001 which was decided vide judgment dated 10.03.2003 quashing the impugned order of termination of the said person. The State went in appeal being L.P.A. No. 397 of 2003. After noticing the facts of the case vide judgment dated 14.07.2005, the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of with observation that the said petitioner will not be entitled to salary for the period from 27.05.2000 i.e. the order of his termination from service till the date of his rejoining duties. Learned Division Bench of this Court also took into account that after 16 years had elapsed since the petitioner was initially appointed and thereafter terminated and again reinstated in service and after 10 years of his appointment, his services were once again sought to be
terminated. In the aforesaid light of facts, the learned Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the State was also dismissed. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench in the case of Sadanand Thakur and judgment of Letters Patent Court are annexed as Annexures -7 and 8 to the writ petition. Thereafter vide order dated 15.09.2005, Annexure-9, the said person was reinstated in service.
It is obvious that after reinstatement of the said person, the present writ petition has been preferred in the year 2008.
This Court, in the aforesaid circumstances when the petitioners have slept over their right for more than 15 years and filed the present writ petition in the year 2008, is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. The march of time does not get arrested after the cause of action has arisen in the year 1993 and the petitioners have all along waited for judgment of the Hon'ble Courts in the case of another person to agitate their own grievances. Therefore, this Court refrains from exercising discretionary jurisdiction in the matter, which is barred by gross delay and latches.
Accordingly, this writ petition, is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Kamlesh/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere when the petitioners slept over their right for more than 15 years causing gross delay and laches.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the long gap since the termination of the petitioners' services.
Md. Asiruddin
Md. Sameeullah Ansari
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Apareesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
