Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 882 (JHR)

Arun Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-22

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 06.09.1997 whereby, the service of the petitioner was terminated. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on 22.07.1988 on the post of Zanzir Wahak (Chain Man) and his service was terminated on 06.09.1997 on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal. It appears that in W.P.(S) No. 5579 of 2003, titled “Girdhari Mahto Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others”, a learned Single Judge of this Court relying on some direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others”, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 directed the State of Jharkhand to regularize the service of employee. After the decision in the case of “Gopal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand”, reported in 2005 (4) JLJR 614 and 'Girdhari Mahto' (supra), the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of termination dated 06.09.1997. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3345 of 1997 before the Hon'ble Patna High Court and the writ petition was allowed. However, the Latters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar and other analogues cases were decided by order dated 29.01.2003 dismissing the service of all such employees. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the appeals by order dated 11.07.2006. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is identically situated as the employee in the case of 'Gopal Singh' and 'Girdhari Mahto' and others and therefore, a similar relief can be granted to the petitioner also. With respect to the statement made in the counter-affidavit regarding the filing of the writ petition challenging the order of termination by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instruction to state that the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition challenging the order of termination on 06.09.1997. 6. With respect to the statement made in the counter-affidavit regarding the filing of the writ petition challenging the order of termination by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instruction to state that the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition challenging the order of termination on 06.09.1997. 6. Without going into such factual aspect of this case, I find that since the order of termination of the petitioner is dated 06.09.1997 and the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 29.01.2013 and there is no explanation whatsoever by the petitioner for approaching this Court after a period of 15 years, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.