THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.9534 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner when reported for duty on completion of Lien from Shipping Credit Investment Corporation of India, without any show cause notice, charge memo and inquiry required for permanent Government Servant, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to joint duty with 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Director in Group ‘A’ service at 3rd respondent, which is an autonomous body for past 11 years. The 2nd respondent allowed him to go on Lien for a period of one year and conveyed vide proceedings of 3rd respondent, dated 30-06-1994. Thereafter, at request of the petitioner, the respondents extended Lien for one more year. After completion of two years Lien period, which expired on 30-06-1996, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent on 24-07-1996 to extend Lien for one more year, which is permissible under rules for a period of maximum three years, so as to get more exposure and project in which he was working, but the 2nd respondent regretted for extension. In December, 1996, he reported for duty with 3rd respondent, but 3rd respondent did not take him on duty and directed to report before 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent did not allow him to join service and not passed any written orders and finally the petitioner was left in a state of mental shock. Thereafter, the 1st respondent conveyed impugned order, dated 09-01-2007 terminating the petitioner from service w.e.f. 01-07- 1996 and the said termination order was not served on him. The petitioner gave several representations to the respondents 1 and 2, but no decision has been taken. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed detailed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition. It is stated that the petitioner was never terminated from service. While serving in Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) as Assistant Director, he applied for a post in Shipping Credit Investment Corporation of India (SCICI) and on selection as a direct recruit to the post, he requested that he may be relieved from MPEDA, but requested that he may be permitted to keep a lien on the post of Assistant Director. The petitioner was relieved w.e.f. 30-06-1994. As per rules, the petitioner’s lien expired on 30- 06-1996. The 2nd respondent did not terminate the petitioner’s lien but since the petitioner did not joint duty at MPEDA after 30-06- 1996, his lien stood expired w.e.f. 01-07-1996. The petitioner worked only for four years as Assistant Director in MPEDA and thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Director (RO) w.e.f.19- 03-1990 and had been working in that capacity till 30-06-1994 when he joined SCICI on selection as a direct recruit. At his request, the petitioner was relieved from MPEDA and he joined SCICI. In his letter, dated 01-06-1994, the petitioner also requested that he may be permitted to keep lien on his post at MPEDA and the lien period was granted and subsequently it was extended. It was specified that extension was given for one year and no further extension would be given. The petitioner was also directed either to tender his resignation or to revert back to MPEDA on completion of his lien period. In spite of the same, the petitioner sought for extension of his lien for another term of one year. The same was refused by the respondents and it was specifically stated that in case the petitioner is not joining the authority on completion of lien period on 01-07-1996, his lien will be terminated w.e.f. 01-07-1996. Thereafter, the petitioner did not join the service. Hence, the termination of lien was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has not reported to 3rd or 2nd respondent on or after 01-07-1996. but he continued in service of SCICI on a higher post. On 03-01-2000, the 2nd respondent received representation from the petitioner seeking permission to join MPEDA, but the same was denied. The petitioner on his own volition chose to continue in SCICI after expiry of lien period expired on 30-06-1996. In case of petitioner, there was no dismissal, removal or reduction in the rank and the lien ended when the period specified in the relevant rule was over. The petitioner was never prevented from joining the duty before expiry of the lien period, but on the contrary, he was directed to join the services of MPEDA, vide memorandum, dated 12-06-1996. The petitioner refused to join the services of MPEDA and on his own volition continued with SCICI and hence, the lien was terminated as per the procedure laid down in FR 13 and Government of India Order (2). The petitioner is not entitled to join back MPEDA and further MPEDA has long before filled up his post. Hence, they pray to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Assistant Director with the 1st respondent and thereafter, he was deputed to work with Shipping Credit Investment Corporation of India. He was allowed to go on lien for a period of one year. At his request, the lien was extended to one more year. which expires by 01-07- 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner is bound to get himself relieved from SCICI and join duty with the 2nd respondent. For about 17 years, he kept quiet and filed the present writ petition stating that the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner when reported for duty is illegal. There is no material filed by the petitioner to show that immediately after completion of lien period, he reported for duty with the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent refused to take him into service. Therefore, on the ground of laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is, imperative, if the petitioner wants to invoke extraordinary remedy available under Article 226, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. It is essential that persons who are aggrieved by any order of the Government or any executive action, should approach the High Court with utmost expedition. 6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though number of representations have been given by the petitioner to the authorities concerned permitting him to join the duty, no decision has been taken by the respondents 2 and 3, but the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the same has been specifically denied by the 2nd respondent. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 07-06-2011 Hsd