Item No.16
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.No.849 OF 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 22.08.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20928 of 2001 filed by
the respondent/writ petitioner praying inter alia for declaring the
action of the appellants for not regularizing her service as a Safai Karamchari, as arbitrary and illegal and for seeking regularization of her services with all consequential benefits.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has simply issued directions to the appellants/respondents to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for regularizing her service and for granting her regular pay scale attached to the post of Sweeper within eight weeks.
3. In view of the aforesaid innocuous nature of order whereby, the appellants have only been directed to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner and take a decision within a period of eight weeks, we have enquired learned counsel for the appellants to address the court on the maintainability of the present appeal. In our opinion, no adverse order has been passed against the appellants for them to have filed an appeal.
W.A.No.849 OF 2019 Page 1 of 2 2
4. In fact, had the appellants taken a decision within a reasonable time reckoned from the date of passing of the order, the entire matter would have been over by now. The impugned order was passed on 22.08.2019. The present appeal was filed by the appellants/Bank in October 2019 and ever since then, the matter has been hanging fire for no fault of the respondent. Rather, the order sheets reveal that it has been on account of repeated requests for adjournments made on behalf of the appellants that the present appeal has remained pending.
5. Even today, when learned counsel for the appellants states that he is recently been engaged in the matter by the appellants/Bank and needs time to obtain instructions, we had passed over the matter. On the second call, yet again learned counsel for the appellants seeks an adjournment, which has been declined.
6. We do not see any reason to entertain the present appeal which is dismissed as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 19.07.2021 Lrkm W.A.No.849 OF 2019 Page 2 of 2