Patna High Court dismissed a petition for reinstatement filed eleven years after service termination, holding that the gross delay precluded relief, and declined to question the validity of the original engagement order.
Relief for reinstatement was denied on account of gross delay in filing the petition.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7275 of 2000
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh, AP24
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
Having regard to the fact that services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1989 and the present writ application seeking reinstatement came to be filed only on 8.8.2000, this Court taking into account that there is no explanation whatsoever for such a gross delay of eleven years in moving this Court, would find it difficult to now allow the prayer of reinstatement in the year 2015. In fact it would also not like to make any comment on such claim of the petitioner keeping in view that even initial order
Patna High Court CWJC No.7275 of 2000 (8) dt.07-08-2015
2
of engagement of the petitioner was not made in conformity of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That being so, this application must fail and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ application for reinstatement seeking restoration of services terminated in 1989 and filed in 2000 can be allowed despite gross delay of eleven years at the time of hearing.
Whether the claim for reinstatement should be allowed when the initial order of engagement was not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kailash Thakur
State of Bihar
Mihir Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
