IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 253 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.12.2009 Mukesh Kumar Gupta ……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and three others …… Respondents Coram : Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble B.C.Kandpal, J. Present: Mr. Gopal Narain Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The appellant was inducted into the service of the respondents by an order dated 31.12.1981. A perusal of the aforesaid order, which is available on the record of the Writ Court (Writ Petition (S/S) No.1335 of 2008) reveals, that the appellant was appointed for the period from 01.01.1982 to 28.02.1982 i.e. for two months. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant continued to discharge duties as a casual worker on daily wage basis even thereafter, and that, his appointment was renewed from time to time with notional breaks. Thereupon his services were dispensed with in 1988. However, as a consequence of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 14205-12 of 1982 (alongwith a large number of other connected Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal) dated 15.07.1985, the appellant was reinstated into service. In this behalf relevant facts were narrated by the appellant in paragraphs 6 to 8 of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1335 of 2008. Despite his re- 2 instatement, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as also the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition reveal, that his services were again dispensed with by an order dated 13.01.1989. 2. From 1989 to 2006, the appellant did not seek the redressal of his grievance, so as to assail the order of termination. However, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 189 of 2006.The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 22.02.2006 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation made by the appellant within three months. Even the instant writ petition filed by the appellant, so as to assail the order of his termination passed in 1989 should have ordinarily been dismissed on account of delay and laches, inasmuch as, even a Civil Court was not competent, at the instant belated stage, in view of the law of limitation the claim raised by the appellant by approaching this Court in 2006 by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.189 of 2006. All the same, in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 22.02.2006, the respondents again considered the claim of the appellant and rejected his representation by an order dated 24.07.2006. 3. The appellant assailed the order dated 24.07.2006 by approaching this Court, yet again by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1335 of 2008. Yet again he approached this court after a delay of two years. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 19.11.2009 for reasons of delay and laches. 4. We are satisfied, that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing Writ Petition (S/S) No.1335 of 2008, so as to basically impugn the order of termination passed in 1989. The order passed by this court on 22.02.2006, cannot be a valid basis to overcome delay. The said order was not passed on an examination of the merits of the claim of the appellant, or on an examination of the 3 issue of delay which had already occurred by then. We, therefore, hereby, uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. During the course of hearing, we required the learned counsel for the appellant to first demonstrate how he would overcome the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge on the issue of delay and laches. Rather than doing so, learned counsel for the appellant wasted court’s time by narrating the entire service career of the appellant from 1981 to 1989. The facts brought by him, to our notice, were totally irrelevant to the controversy, which were subject matter of the instant special appeal. 6. The instant special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand). The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the appellant with the State Legal Services Authority, Uttarakhand within one month from today, and a receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of this case. In case, the aforesaid cost is not deposited within the time stipulated hereinabove, the instant special appeal shall be re-listed for motion hearing for the recovery of the costs. ( B.C. Kandpal, J. ) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 22.12.2009 P.Singh