1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 144 of 2010 Prabhat Kumar Agarwal ……… Appellant Versus Managing Director, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation & others. ………. Respondents. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) The instant Special Appeal has been filed so as to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.06.2010, vide which Writ Petition ( S/S) No. 1760 of 2005 was dismissed. The consideration, which had weighed with the learned Single Judge to dismiss Writ Petition (S/S/) No. 1760 of 2005, emerged from the paragraph of the aforesaid order, relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereunder: “The employers had accepted the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement treating it to be a resignation letter w.e.f. 1st September, 1998. The services of the petitioner came to an end on 1st September, 1998. The petitioner did not stir in the matter and kept silent for almost six years and, thereafter, made a representation which was decided by the employer in the year 2005. Such decision on the representation of the petitioner cannot enlarge the period of limitation. Nothing has been indicated by the petitioner as to why he could appeal against the order dated 01/09/1998 beore the appellant authority as provided under Regulation 69 of the UPSRTC. Employees ( other than Officers ) Service Regulations , 1981 nor has it been indicated in the writ petition as to what restrained the petitioner from not approaching the writ court earlier. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matte at this belated stage. The writ petition is dismissed.” 2. If the factual position ( noticed herein above) is considered, along with the fact, that it is conceded before us, that the appellant did not attend to his duties w.e.f. 01.09.1998 till his representation was rejected on laches in 2005, i.e., for a period of about 7 years, it clearly emerges that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was fully justified. 2 3. For the reason recorded herein above, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 28.07.2010 28.07.2010 G