Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 37 (MP)

Kavita Mahajan v. State of M. P.

2011-01-10

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This intra-Court appeal filed under section 2 (1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, arises from the order of learned Single Judge dated 3.12.2010 by which the Writ Petition No. 17230/2010 preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The facts leading to filing of the instant appeal briefly stated, are that the appellant who was appointed on 1.1.1990 on daily wages basis vide order dated 28.7.1992, was terminated by an oral order dated 7.8.1992. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any legal recourse against her illegal termination. Though it is stated that the petitioner made representations for her reinstatement and giving extention of benefit of certain policy of the State Government, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner for the first time in the year 2010 challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 3.12.2010 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant on the ground of laches. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was engaged in service purely on daily wage basis on 1.1.1990 and that by an-oral order his services were dispensed with on 7.8.1992. It is also not in dispute that no steps have been taken against the order of termination for the last 18 years and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches and negligence on the part of the appellant. 6. It is well settled legal position that person guilty of laches and negligence are disentitled to any the relief by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Reference may be made to the judgment of the apex Court in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. Jahar Singh [(2007) 2 SCC 112] NDMC v. Pan Singh [ (2007) 9 SCC 78 ] and Virendra Choudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others [ (2009) 1 SCC 297 ]. 7. We therefore, do not find any fault in the order of learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal being without merit is dismissed summarily.