Madras High Court
S.Damodaran vs The Central Ware Housing Corporation on 14 June, 2017
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 14.06.2017 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.RAJA Writ Petition No.14855 of 2017 S.Damodaran .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Central Ware Housing Corporation by its Dy.General Manager (R&P), Ware Housing Bhavan, 4/1, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016. 2.The Central Ware Housing Corporation by its Regional Manager, Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-18. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records vide No.CWC/IV-Supdt./CRC/2013-14 dated 15.5.2015 passed by Deputy General Manager (R & P)/1st respondent with reference to PRP relating to years 2012-13 & 2013-14 and quash the same and directing the respondents 1 & 2 to release and pay the amount under PRP for the periods from 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. For Petitioner .. Mr.G.S.Shivekumar ----- O R D E R
The petitioner was appointed as the Junior Superintendent in the respondent organization in the year 1985 and he was promoted as Superintendent/Ware House Manager in the year 2002 and he was retired from service on 30.06.2015. While so, prior to 15 days to his retirement he has received a communication dated 15.05.2015 from the respondent informing that his PRP grading is below par during 2013-14 as per committee report and hence the PRP has not been paid for 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and 2015-16. The order also informed that further representation will be entertained in this regard. He has not received any adverse report during his service tenure of 30 years. He was not given any opportunity to represent the order. Hence, he has come up with the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 15.05.2015.
2. Though the impugned order was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2015, the petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 01.06.2017. The petitioner has also retired from service on 30.06.2015. It is not known how the writ petition can be filed with a huge delay of nearly two years after the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioner is guilty of laches and huge delay in filing this writ petition.
3. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the ground of delay. Writ petition is rejected accordingly. No costs.
14.06.2017 gr.
T.RAJA, J W.P.No.14855 of 2017 14.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in