Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex.Sub Clk (Jc-204062F) Dalip Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 February, 2013
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16826 of 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: February 08, 2013
Ex.Sub Clk (JC-204062F) Dalip Singh
.....Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE
Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner
..
A.K. SIKRI, C.J.: (Oral)
1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr. IPS Doabia, Standing Counsel for Union of India accepts notice for the respondents.
3. Since short question is involved, both the counsel are ready to argue the matter. The OA of the petitioner herein has been dismissed by the learned AFT on the ground that petitioner is making representations again and again and it was the third round of litigation. The following facts noted by the learned Tribunal are self-speaking:
"As appears from the averments of the petition, that this is third round of litigation, in as much as, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.5582 of 2002, which is said to have been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, vide order dated 10.04.2002. then, according to the petitioner, he awaited for the decision of his representation, and again filed Civil Writ Petition No.11012 of 2002, wherein the respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order on the representation dated 05.12.2001. this is said to be the order of High Court dated 7.8.2002 produced as Annexure A-11. Then, the petitioner was communicated Annexure A-13 dated 27th January, 2003, in implementation of the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.11012 of 2002, and appropriate speaking order was CWP-16826-2012 -2- passed to the effect that the grant of Hony Commission is based on merit-cum-vacancy, and that the petitioner's case was considered for grant of Hony Commission by the competent authority twice on the occasion of Republic Day and Independence Day 1999. However, while considering his service profile along with other JCOs in the panel, his name could not come up in merit, as such he could not be granted Hony Commission. It is notwithstanding this, that the petitioner thereafter filed a representation on 25th November, 2002, allegedly complaining of non-compliance of the order of the High Court.
In our view, it would suffice to say that the matter stood closed with Annexure A-13, and simply because the petitioner chooses to go on making any representation after any length of time, that cannot give him any fresh cause of action or fresh right to revive the issue.
If taken from the date of Annexure A-13, the petition is clearly barred by time, and cannot be entertained at this belated hour. The same is, therefore, dismissed."
It is clear from the above that when this Court passed the orders on 7.8.2002 directing the respondents to pass speaking orders, the orders were passed on 27.1.2003 and communicated to the petitioner. However, instead of challenging those orders, the petitioner kept on making further representations and thereafter approached the AFT only in the year 2012.
4. In these circumstances, the petition is rightly dismissed as time-barred.
5. No merit.
6. Dismissed.
( A.K. SIKRI )
CHIEF JUSTICE
February 08, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
pc JUDGE
2