wp (g), 14% /09 aw nwfm no 5m rm mmafaa afaawn Iraq: $1 E afma'i slam 5mm W é‘r frOd‘QogaTa aaanm5kaé.&aw- azmfafmT, amam: éf‘an whiff ama mafia awn- a’ca°r11$°r ah {ma a’afm a fam-mma -:a=n’a: — v— Katya Iran WIT afaa magaa mm awe 2/- affa'a W faaT , magks! a‘rrr-ra aT%aa $ faam ':- an%a=1 & wésraa‘rt 2/— mat-Wm a1- ?aam - aréaa Era 3 i‘Wmaaw 3/- Ga arka a‘r faam fawh fa‘é: uTfa'arr W $a§§ — 1/- ma 5T Faam - as urfaa‘r faiaffaa a1%$1 & 1=a$ag1§a a3 T'éu M'RW Wu'a‘D/fiu «120 31mW (WE) [XI-H078 m §m$ $55) w WNW ”Win mzo Wei qaai (W) maimm ammwm mmwmw mm#wm fLg—A $mané€1 Respondents in their regurn have resisted the claim ehiy on the ground that the petitioner was terminated way back on 05—05-1 971 and instant petition was filed after 2" years oiaiming reinstatement and grant of benefit w.e,f. the originai date of appointment Claim of the petitioner is highiy belated and therefore: the petition is iiabie to be diSmissed on the ground of delay. it has also be n stated that even when the petitioner was given reappointment vide 0rd r dated 11—07-1986 (Annexure-26) which Court. This petition was filed atter delay of almost 12 years. it is also s itted by the respondents that in spite of such a long delay, no expla on whatsoever has been offered by the petitioner but on the contrary it has been pleaded that the petition is weil within limitation as prescribed nder Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal A t, 1985. According to the respondents, the first representation atter the o der of reappointment dated 11-07—1986, was made after about 11 years vide Annexure-27 on 03-1 0—1 997 and this petition was filed in the year 19 8 which shows that the petitioner has been completety indolent and the p tition ought to be dismissed only on this ground. has been ohaHenged before th i u n i Learned counsei for the etitioner does not dispute that in the entire petition, no explanation for dela has been offered and no pieading to this effect has been made. He how ver submits that this Court mav take into consideration the circumstanc s of the case and the fact that after termination of service vide ord r dated 05-05-1 971 (Annexure-2), severai the petitioner and she was given re- appointment vide order dat 11-07-1986 and thereafter she made representation in the year 1997 as also sent legal notice before fiiing the \\ representations were *maole e : XI-HC-78 ‘ g“ W mqi$ W?QSJN“W%; § r W31 W (W) mawaai’es mmmanéa mm§wm wmelm «% $Wané¥t present petition. Learned counsei for the petitioner strenuousiy submitted that the petition ought not to be thrown oniy on the ground of deiay, once the case ie found to be of some merit. He has piaced reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Cour: in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Bahadur Singh a others, (1983)3 SCC 73 and N. Balakrishraan Versus M. Krish amurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123. The undisputed facts fioa ing on the surface are that the petitioner was terminated on 05-05—1 971 ( nnexure 2). The petitioner has ptaced on ich show that the petitioner had been making representation one after the another for severai years but she did not take recourse to any iegai r medy nor did she approach any Court of law for redressai of her grievanc . The said order of termination remained unchallenged and unquestioned in any Court of law until the claim for reinstatement with grant of s vice benefit from the date of originai appointment was raised for the irst time in the instant petition med in the year 1998 i.e. atter 27 years. Th re is no expianation whatsoever offered in record certain representations 2 . the petition to justify such a long eiay of 27 years. By not calling in question, he respondents’ action of terminating her services vide order dated 05—05- 71 (Arinexure 2), petitioner waived right, if any, she had to challenge the s me and claim benefits. The petitioner did s not knock the doors of justi even after issuance of order of re- appointment dated 11—07-1986 ( nnexure 26). From perusal of aforesaid order, it is very clear andso und rstood by the petitioner that he was given re-appointment and not {einstat ment in service. The petitioner accepted the said order of reappointment ithout any demur of protest and worked $ n h 9 c wIeE)mm%l.. 1mm ainias E20 8m W (llama) mmméaiw amméaamim mmmanéa ~41 ,— mam§ww aiwsnéa on that post. After about 11 years, the petitioner submitted representation for the first time on 03—10—1 997 (:iaiming that she shouid be granted benefit ate of appointment i,e.30-D4-1 964 and seniority shouid aiso be grant , Thereafter, a iegai notice dated 17-11- 1997 was given under Section 0 of the CP‘C. and then this petition was filed in the year 1998. From the aforesaid admitted facts, it would be ciear that the petitioner did not take of service from the originai e ourse to legai remedy against the order dated 11-07-1 986 for grant of enetit and acquiesced in the same. If the petitioner had any grievance w' h the order dated 05-054 971 or with the order dated 11-07—1 986, she ou ht to approach the appropriate iegai forum within the reasonabie time and ithout undue and inordinate deiay, tn the case of State of U ar Pradesh Vs. Eahadur Singh & others (Supra), the Supreme Court s deaiing with the case where the writ petition was dismissed hoidingt at it was tiled beyond limitation of 90 days for filing of writ petition under Article 226. ln that context, the Supreme Court observed that the High C utt was not justified in declining to examine the case on merits on the sole round that the petition was filed atter delay of 42 days. The following pinciple was laid down in the aforesaid judgment:- “The only known pri ciple is that the Court may not examine the stale cause as th court helps the vigilant and not the indolent it is a rule devised on the principle of judicial circumspection and ha to be applied wisely, And look at the fact‘situation. :l'he ex lanation for the deiay offered was convincing and accepta le.” ‘ c a XI-HE-78 Hm ainiai @ wmmlW/W «a 2o Mt anéaT nails (W) anéwwm ammstaw'm'w mmmm wg/ v V WM#MW $Wsné31 in the case of N. Baiakrishnan Versus M. Krishnamur'thj/(supra), the Supreme Court whne considering the case where the trial Court accepting the explanation for inordinate deiay, allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitaticn Act and condoned the delay. in that case, applicant filed an application for condonation of delay there by offering detailed explanation. The trial Court had accepted the explanation and condoned the delay of 883 da s in ming the application On being taken to the High Court, the order was reversed. in the peculiar circumstances of the case‘ it was observed b the Supreme Court that explanation was offered and once the explanaton for delay was found satisfactory by the trial Court in exercise of his d etion, it ought not to be upset by the High Court when exercising revi onal jurisdiction. ln that case, detailed explanation was offered for co donation of delay which was accepted by the trial Court but later on up et by the revisional Court The above two decisions do not help the petit ner in the present case. The long delay in filing the instant petition ola ming for the first time after 27 years, reinstatement in service from the original date of appointment with all service benefits is nothing but i directly chalienging the legality and validity 1 971. Not only this, even after issuance of order of reappointment on 11 7-1 986, no step whatsoever was taken by the petitioner for claiming ben fit. Even though, no limitation is prescribed for filing writ petition, it cannot e lost sight of that the petition was fiied by the petitioner before the Tri unal where limitation was prescribed for approaching the Madhya Prad h State Administrative Tribunal and in view of the provisions contained un er Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribuna’t Act, 1 85, the petition was apparently barred by limitation. However, in spite this, without making any appiication for oftermination order dated 05-0 i r - Xl-HC-78 $2 mawiéafas ammwm matm (W) mmwm ~—g/— mam§mw v $Wanéa oondonation of delay in filing thx a present petition, the petitioner declared in the petition that the petition is well within the iimitation. This shows that the petitioner has no expianation tc such inordinate delay. The instantpetition is th ground of delay and latches wit termination dated 0505-1971. Aocordingiy, the petition i offer as to Why the petition was filed with erefore tiabie to be dismissed onty on the hout adverting to the merits of the order of s dismissed, No order as to costs. “L sal- Tumane w ‘9 g) Matias/P5”