9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves the termination of the petitioner's service as a police constable in 1967, similar to other constables who were dismissed and later reinstated through litigation. The main question is whether the delay of twenty-two years in filing for reinstatement after termination in 1967 should be considered reasonable. Issue 1: The petitioner, a constable in the Delhi Armed Police, had his service terminated in 1967 due to participation in an agitation. Many dismissed constables were reinstated through litigation, and the petitioner filed for reinstatement in 1989, claiming similarity to those reinstated earlier. The Tribunal rejected the application citing an inordinate delay of twenty-two years. Details: The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application due to the significant delay of twenty-two years in filing for reinstatement after termination in 1967. The petitioner argued that he should be reinstated like others, and the delay should not be a factor. However, the Tribunal found the delay unexplained and refused relief based on this ground. Issue 2: The key question is whether the delay in filing for reinstatement after twenty-two years, despite similarities with other reinstated constables, should be disregarded. The petitioner claimed discrimination by the Delhi Administration for not reinstating him along with others. Details: The Court analyzed whether the delay of twenty-two years in claiming reinstatement, despite knowing about others' successful reinstatements, should be overlooked. The petitioner's argument of discrimination was countered by the Court, emphasizing the importance of timely claims in service matters to maintain administrative stability and fairness among employees. Issue 3: The Court deliberated on the impact of unexplained delay in filing for reinstatement on the petitioner's claim. It examined the equitable principles of Article 14 and non-discrimination in service matters, highlighting the significance of timely claims to avoid disruption in the administrative setup. Details: The Court emphasized that unexplained delays in claiming relief can affect administrative stability and fairness among employees. It noted that the petitioner's delay of twenty-two years without a satisfactory explanation undermined his claim for reinstatement and could disrupt the administrative setup. The Court concluded that granting relief to the petitioner after such a prolonged delay would be inequitable and refused the relief claimed under Article 136 of the Constitution. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.
|
