Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8449 of 2021 Petitioner :- Harikesh Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was employed as Home Guard in the year 2004 and was subsequently disengaged on 15.2.2010. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner moved several applications that the petitioner may be reinstated as he has been wrongly disengaged. Ultimately, on an application made by the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 9.11.2018 rejecting the request of the petitioner placing reliance on the Government Order dated 2.12.2016 which permits the consideration for request of engagement only for a period of six years whereas the representation has been given after six years, thus, same cannot be considered. The said order was communicated vide order dated 9.11.2020. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition (A) No. 7741 of 2020 (Harikesh Kumar Shukla Vs. State of UP) decided on 5.10.2020 wherein directions were issued for taking decision with regard to the application filed by the petitioner for re-employment after his initial disengagement. The Court while directing decision on representation had clearly observed that it has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, order dated 9.11.2020 was passed.
In sum and substance, the argument of the petitioner is that the disengagement in the year 2010 i.e. on 15.2.2010 was bad in law and without following any enquiry or procedure prescribed. He further argues that the petitioner, being holder of the civil post, could not have been disengaged in the manner that was done.
In view of the facts as pleaded above, it is clear that the petitioner approached this High Court after about 10 years when the first Writ Petition No. 7741 of 2020 was filed. Prior to that, the petitioner was only making representations. The delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court at the very belated stage has been explained only by stating that the petitioner continued to represent the matter. The conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court after about 10 years of being disengaged, cannot be accepted as the petitioner was clearly not vigilant about his rights, the petitioner cannot be re- engaged after such a long time.
The writ petition suffers from laches and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 vinay