IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 294 of 2009 (S/B) Jai Narain Agarwal. .……… Petitioner Versus State Public Services Tribunal & others. .………. Respondents. Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel, State of Uttarakhand, for respondent Nos. 1 & 4 to 6. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel, State of U.P., for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) A claim petition filed before the Tribunal was dismissed on 18th January, 2007 for non-prosecution, inasmuch as, since 22nd November, 2005, except on three occasions, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear and that when such appearances were caused, only adjournments were prayed for. The petitioner, accordingly, changed his Advocate and filed a restoration application, which was dismissed by an order dated 21st January, 2008 on the ground that earlier Advocate could not proceed with the case in the proper manner is no sufficient ground. It is true that unjustified absence of an Advocate cannot be a ground for recalling an order dismissing a lis for non-prosecution. However, it must be kept in mind that for the laches on the part of the Advocate engaged by a client in view of the practice prevalent, the client should not suffer and, accordingly, by passing such appropriate order, an earnest effort must be made to hear the grievances for which a litigant had been constrained to approach a judicial forum. 2. It is even more surprising that when a second claim petition was filed, the same was rejected on the ground of constructive res judicata, but not on the ground of limitation, without taking note of the fact that 2 while dismissing the earlier claim petition, the merit of the lis had not been gone in. The manner in which the Tribunal has acted is deprecated. 3. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside the orders dated 18th January, 2007 and 21st January, 2008 passed on Claim Petition No. 105/T/2001 and restore the said claim petition to its file. The Tribunal is directed to decide the said claim petition on its merits. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 09.09.2010 09.09.2010 G