Dismissed

Shree Dutt v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2012CWP/9624/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking condonation of a 225-day service break and regularization of services from 30.09.1988 instead of 1.1.1991, rejecting the claim due to an inordinate delay of over twenty years and the absence of rules permitting such break condonation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without any regularization of services or condonation of service break.

Shree Dutt Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P.No.9624 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P.No.9624 of 2012 Date of Decision:- 21.05.2012

Shree Dutt

....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶9

....Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

¶13

Present:Mr.S.K.Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

¶15

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

¶16

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for condonation of a break of 225 days i.e. from 7.5.1986 to 17.12.1986 and to regularize his services w.e.f. 30.09.1988 instead of 1.1.1991 from which date the petitioner has been regularized against the post of SS Master.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Social Studies Master on 27.1.1986 and continued as such till 6.5.1986. He was again appointed on 18.12.1986 and had been continuing as S.S. Master till date. Petitioner was entitled to regularization of his services in the light of the policy decision dated 6.4.1990, according to which on completion of 2 years' service, an employee has to be regularized. In spite of that, petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1991, which the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not in consonance with the claim to which he is entitled to, provided the break in

¶18

C.W.P.No.9624 of 2012

¶19

-2-

¶20

service for 225 days from 7.5.1986 to 17.12.1986 is condoned. He contends that the petitioner has been approaching the respondents for the grant of the claim, as has been submitted through the present writ petition. He contends that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.1988 instead of 1.1.1991 is not in consonance with law and, therefore, a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from 30.09.1988. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Yadunath Jha vs. Union of India and another, 1986(3) SCC 325 to contend that delay alone cannot be a ground for not granting the relief, as has been claimed by the petitioner.

¶21

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case.

¶22

The facts as narrated above itself project the unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. The petitioner who is a Social Studies Master and is well aware of his rights, was regularized as such on 1.1.1991 as per the policy prevalent then. He did not agitate the regularization granted to him and as is apparent from the pleadings and the record, the first effort, if any, which was made by the petitioner for getting the prior date of regularization is the mercy appeal dated 22.10.2001 which is after a period of more than 10 years from the date of his regularization. Petitioner was well aware of the factum of regularization and the policy under which he is now claiming regularization w.e.f. 30.9.1988. He having slept over the matter, cannot be allowed now to agitate the said claim and his approach to this Court after a period of

¶23

C.W.P.No.9624 of 2012

¶24

-3-

¶25

more than 20 years itself further defeats his right as the claim has become stale which cannot be revived at this stage. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is different on the aspect as therein it was explained as to why the approach has been made by the petitioner after an inordinate delay.

¶26

The present petition, thus, is dismissed on the ground of delay. In any case, as regards the period which is being sought to be condoned i.e. of 225 days break period, there are no instructions or Rules which permit condonation of such a break period.

¶27

May 21, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

Shree Dutt v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Dutt v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Vs State of Haryana

Nirvail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dilbagh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajwanti Vs State of Haryana & Ors.