Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1013 (JHR)

Sanjiv Kumar Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of an order contained in Memo No. 1562 dated 15th May 1993 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar. He further prays for reinstatement of his services on the post of Health Worker. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in WPS No. 628/2010 and WPS No. 5629/2010 dated 04th May 2010 and 10th January 2011 respectively to submit that in similar circumstances, persons whose services were terminated in the year 1993, had approached this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions relying upon certain orders passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6575/2009. In such circumstances, respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking order within a stipulated period. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that similar directions can be issued in favour of the petitioner for disposal of his representation. 4. Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, by relying upon the statements made in the counter affidavit, submits that this appointment was made by Dr. A.A. Mallick, Deputy Director, Tuberculosis in a wholly illegal and irregular manner sometimes in the September 1992. However, it was found by the competent authority at the relevant point of time in the year 1993 itself that these appointments were wholly without jurisdiction and done in a illegal and irregular manner. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that when the appointments made by Dr. Mallick were terminated by the then Government of Bihar, aggrieved employees went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10758-59 of 1995 reported in 1997 (2) SCC 1 in which, according to the respondents, it was observed that after full compliance of principles of natural justice to the concerned employees, appointments were recalled and terminated. Therefore, termination order of such appointees was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2012 against the order of termination dated 15th May 1993 which is otherwise wholly barred by gross latches and delay on the part of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2012 against the order of termination dated 15th May 1993 which is otherwise wholly barred by gross latches and delay on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents, in compliance of the direction passed in WPS No. 628/2010 and WPS No. 5629/2010, have reconsidered the matter and the same has been rejected by a detailed speaking order which is annexed as Annexures-B & C dated 10th September 2011 and 18th February 2012 respectively to the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, it is submitted that this petitioner should not be allowed to agitate the grievance which has become grossly barred by delay and latches on his part, at this stage. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. On the face of it, the prayer made in the writ application for quashing of Memo No. 1562 dated 15th May 1993 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar appears to be barred by gross delay and latches. In any case, it appears that the issues relating to the appointees of one Dr. Mallick at the relevant point of time, had travelled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and such termination was not interfered with. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner contained in Annexures-8 & 9 (WPS No. 628/2010 and WPS No. 5629/2010), this Court has not given any finding on the merits raised in the said case. Rather, respondent authorities were simply directed to consider their representations in accordance with law on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court which they had relied upon. However, respondents after considering the said matter, have rejected the representation of the concerned petitioners vide Annexures-B & C dated 10th September 2011 and 18th February 2012. Even otherwise, this Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, is not inclined to entertain such grievance, the cause of action of which arose in the year 1993, for which no explanation has been given by the petitioner for moving this Court in the year 2012. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being grossly barred by delay and latches. Even otherwise, this Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, is not inclined to entertain such grievance, the cause of action of which arose in the year 1993, for which no explanation has been given by the petitioner for moving this Court in the year 2012. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being grossly barred by delay and latches. I.A. No. 6211/2013 also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.