Dismissed

K. Yadagiri v. The Government of India

Telangana HC16 Oct 2014WP/30912/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order pursuant to *Unitech Parts Co. Ltd. v. State of Haryana* (2014). Relying on the Supreme Court's earlier decision and the principle of laches, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary power even though the petitioner delayed filing suit by nearly 19 years without valid explanation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

K. Yadagiri Vs The Government of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.30912 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 30.1.1995, in O.A.No.668 of 1991 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Petitioners herein/applicant Nos.22 and 21 filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal along with 21 others to declare the inclusion of examiner trade in Annexure-B to S.R.O. 18-E, dated 6.7.1989, at Sl.No.59 as highly illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/respondents to include the examiner trade in Annexure-A; and to upgrade them to the skilled grade with effect from their respective dates of completion of two years of service in the semi skilled grade with all consequential benefits.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, disposed of the aforementioned Original Application as under:

¶8

“Hence, the respondents have to be directed to advance the dates of promotion of the applicants to the post of skilled category from the respective dates on which they completed 2 years of service in the category of semi-skilled and they having to be paid difference of pay and other emoluments and they have to be given seniority on the basis of advancement of dates of promotion, if the question of seniority also arises. The O.A. is ordered accordingly. No costs.”

¶9

4. Heard.

¶10

5. Though a positive direction was given by the Tribunal, it

¶11

adversely affects the dates of promotion of the petitioners. Still, the petitioners have not challenged the said order for about nearly 20 years. After lapse of 19 years, because of the order, dated 31.3.2014, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2711 of 2014, of the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the power of a High Court to issue appropriate writ is discretionary. The relief under Article 226 cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief under Article 226 is that the petitioners are guilty of delay and latches. It is imperative that if the petitioners want to invoke extraordinary remedy available under Article 226, they should come to the Court at the earliest reasonable possible opportunity. In the absence of any explanation for abnormal delay, on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 16.10.2014 AMD

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶15

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.30912 OF 2014

¶17

DATE: 16.10.2014

¶18

AMD

K. Yadagiri v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Yadagiri v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayam Srinivas Vs Sayam Manjula

Sayam Krishna Vs Sayam. Manjula

Union of India, Vs Sk. Abdul Salam

V.Prabhakar Vs Sec.Transport Roads and Buildingsandanoth

Smt. Dr. C.v.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Principal

M.a.Haleem Vs The State of Ap.