Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr. vs Sudesh Kumar Anand on 28 April, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna
$~63.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2738/2011
Decided on : 28th April, 2011
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate
versus
SUDESH KUMAR ANAND ..... Respondent
Through Mr. G D Bhandari, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
1. We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition filed on 23rd March, 2011 assailing the order dated 5.11.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) allowing OA 488/2008 filed by Mr. Sudesh Kumar Anand, the respondent herein. There is more than two years delay in preferring the present writ petition and no explanation or cause has been set out and explained. The delay in the present case is relevant as the respondent had retired from service as DG (EM), Indian Tourism Development WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2738/2011 Page 1 of 2 Corporation (ITDC, for short) on 1.12.2000 and has been since then waiting for payment of his due retirement benefits. The respondent had worked with the petitioner from 5.1.1965 to 30.8.1974 before he joined ITDC. The respondent had applied for appointment to ITDC through proper channel and was selected and relieved by the petitioner to join ITDC. He retained his lien for two years. The contention of the petitioner is that there was some fault and the technical resignation was not presented or accepted during the prescribed period. By the impugned order the Tribunal has directed that benefit of the service for the period 5.1.1965 to 30.8.1974 to be given to the respondent.
2. It is more than 10 years since the respondent has retired and as noticed the petitioners have approached this court after delay of more than 2 years when the impugned order dated 5.11.2008 was passed by the Tribunal. Delay and laches read with the facts stated above do not merit issue of notice. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 28, 2011/vld WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2738/2011 Page 2 of 2