Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1163 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Harendra Pal Singh

2013-09-25

RAJENDRA MENON, ROHIT ARYA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed, challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 1087/2006 (s). Respondent No. 1 employee, allocated to the State of Chhatisgarh after the State Reorganization Act came into force on 1st November, 2000, when the allocation was made the employee challenged the allocation immediately by approaching Madhya Pradesh State Tribunal. Subsequently the matter was transferred to this Court and accordingly the petition was disposed of this Court on 15.9.2003, directing the Union of India to consider the claim of the petitioner employee for retention in the State of Madhya Pradesh and decide his representation. The Representation was not decided properly and it was rejected without giving any reason and that too without application of mind. The employee, therefore, challenged the rejection of his representation by filing writ petition in the year 2006 and this writ petition has been allowed vide order dated 15.12.2010 which is impugned in this writ appeal. 2. The writ Court has found that the employee has continued in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than 10 years and his representation has not been properly decided, relief has been granted to him. However, by filing this writ appeal, the question is as to whether the delay of more than 912 days in filing this appeal should be condoned or not ? The order was passed on 15.12.2010 and this writ appeal is filed after a period of more than approximately 3 years i.e. on 16.9.2013. In an application i.e. IA No. 7128/2013 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, it is said that delay has occurred due to certain administrative reasons, which was required to be followed before filing of this appeal and as the administrative reasons took time, the delay is sought to be condoned. By this period, the employee is continuing working in the State of Madhya Pradesh for a period of more than 13 years now. The record indicates that in the year 2006 when he filed second writ petition, he was more than 55 years of age. 3. Under such circumstances, the question is as to whether the inordinate delay of more than 912 days should be condoned and petition entertain on merits. 4. The record indicates that in the year 2006 when he filed second writ petition, he was more than 55 years of age. 3. Under such circumstances, the question is as to whether the inordinate delay of more than 912 days should be condoned and petition entertain on merits. 4. Admittedly, the delay of 912 days has not properly explained. Except pointing out that the delay was occurred on administrative reasons, no reasonable justification for this delay of more than three years is given by the respondents. 5. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the unexplained inordinate delay in filing this writ appeal itself is sufficient enough to dismiss this writ appeal. 6. That apart, in the cause title, the age of the employee is shown to be 61 years of age and it would be, therefore, clear that he would be in the fag end of his service and is going to retire very shortly, therefore, at this stage interference in the matter is not called for. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.