Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Babu Ram Sagar vs Lt. Governer Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 26 October, 2021
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12070/2021 & CM. Nos. 37707/2021 and 37708/2021
SH. BABU RAM SAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Singh, Adv.
versus
LT. GOVERNER OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER
% 26.10.2021 This matter is being heard through video-conferencing.
CM. Nos. 37707/2021 and 37708/2021 Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12070/2021 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction thereby quashing the decision of the Board dated 18.08.2021, rejecting the representation dated 20.06.2018 of the petitioner. And
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby confirming the proposal in agenda already approved by the Board on 05.12.2016 in Board meeting of the department. And Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:28.10.2021 11:04:05
c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner alongwith entire consequential seniority benefits as per rules.
d) Direct the Respondents to pay the cost of litigation in favour of the Petitioner;
e) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
This is a second round of litigation, the earlier one being W.P.(C) 1264/2019 decided by this Court on May 1, 2019, wherein the Court had directed the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated June 20, 2018. A decision has now been taken by the Board on the representation of the petitioner dated June 20, 2018 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent vide order dated August 18, 2021.
The petitioner was terminated from the services of the respondent as a peon / chowkidar in the year 1991. It appears that a representation was made by the petitioner somewhere in the year 2017 / 2018 for reconsideration of his case. It also appears that a proposal was put up to the Board for reconsideration of his case. Though no decision has been taken on the said representation, learned counsel for the petitioner highlights the fact that agenda item clearly stipulates the reinstatement of the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
Be that as it may, the impugned order reveals that the respondents are of the view that as no new fact to consider the representation of the petitioner for reinstatement has been stated, the same needs to be rejected.
In any case, I find that the termination was effected in the year 1991. Till 2017, at least nothing has been placed on record to show that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:28.10.2021 11:04:05 petitioner has been pursuing with the respondents about his reinstatement. It is settled law that even if representations are made, the same would not answer the delay and laches. Merely, because in the year 2017 / 2018, the petitioner has made representations, which though not decided then, having been decided pursuant to the orders passed by this Court as referred above whereby the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for reinstatement, surely this Court cannot substitute the said decision. Further the representation of 2017 / 2018 shall not answer the delay in challenging the termination of the year 1991.
I do not see any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J OCTOBER 26, 2021/jg Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:28.10.2021 11:04:05