Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors vs Const. Dharampal And Ors on 4 May, 1990
It is expected of a government servant who has a
legitimate claim to approach the Court for the relief he
seek within a reasonable period, assuming no fixed period of
limitation applies. This is necessary to avoid dislocating
the administrative set-up after it has been functioning on a
certain basis for years. During the interregnum those who
have been
975
working gain more experience and acquire rights which cannot
be defeated casually by lateral entry of a person at a
higher point without the benefit of actual experience during
the period of his absence when he chose to remain silent for
years before making the claim. Apart from the consequential
benefits of reinstatement without actually working, the
impact on the administrative set-up and on other employees
is a strong reason to decline consideration of a stale claim
unless the delay is satisfactorily explained and is not
attributable to the claimant. This is a material fact to be
given due weight while considering the argument of
discrimination in the present case for deciding whether the
petitioner is in the same class as those who challenged
their dismissal several years earlier and were consequently
granted the relief of reinstatement. In our opinion, the
lapse of a much longer unexplained period of several years
in the case of the petitioner is a strong reason to not
classify him with the other dismissed constables who
approached the Court earlier and got reinstatement. It was
clear to the petitioner latest in 1978 when the second batch
of petitions were filed that the petitioner also will have
to file a petition for getting reinstatement. Even then he
chose to wait till 1989, Dharampal's case also being decided
in 1987. The argument of discrimination is, therefore, not
available to the petitioner.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1