Arun Waman Khadtale vs Union Of India And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5716 Bom

Dixit
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.8042 OF 2013

        Arun Waman Khadtale,                            ]
        Age : 58 years,                                 ]
        Building No.43, Flat No.32,                     ]
        Naval Civilian Housing Colony,                  ]
        Pawai, Bhandup, Mumbai-400078.                  ] .... Petitioner
                   Versus
        1. Union of India,                              ]
           Through the Flag Officer,                    ]
           Commander-in-Chief,                          ]
           Western Naval Command,                       ]
           Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai.            ] .... Respondent

]

2. Madhavendra Singh, ] Vice Admiral, Flag Officer, ] Commanding-in-Chief, ] Western Naval Command, ] .... [Dismissed as per order Shahit Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai. ] dated 30th October 2014.]

Mr. Ganesh Murthy, i/by Mr. Jating S. Jamkhandi, for the Petitioner. Mrs. Neeta V. Masurkar for the Respondent-UOI.

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

DATE : 7TH AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [ Per Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. ]

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of

the parties.

WP-8042-13.doc

2. Heard Mr. Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and

Mrs. Masurkar, learned counsel for the Respondent-UOI.

3. The Petitioner has preferred this Petition against the order dated

13th January 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai,

in O.A. No.336 of 2002 preferred by the Petitioner.

4. In the said O.A. No.336 of 2002, the Petitioner had impugned the

order dated 24th November 1998 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting his

appeal against the order of his removal from service. By order dated 13 th

January 2012, the Tribunal has dismissed O.A. No.336 of 2002 preferred

by the Petitioner; hence, this Petition.

5. The Petitioner was initially appointed in Naval Dockyard as a

'Casual Labour' in 1975. He was confirmed as 'Permanent Labour' on 7 th

December 1980. While the Petitioner was working in Naval Dockyard, he

was proceeded against for unauthorized absence and was removed from

service vide order dated 18th February 1998. This order of removal was

challenged by the Petitioner by filing an Appeal dated 20 th March 1998.

The said Appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 24 th November

1998. Hence, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by preferring O.A.

WP-8042-13.doc

No.336 of 2002 against this order dated 24th November 1998. As stated

earlier, the Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A. preferred by the

Petitioner.

6. It is seen that the order of removal from service is dated 18 th

February 1998. Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal preferred by the

Petitioner on 24th November 1998. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner

approached the Tribunal by preferring O.A. No.336 of 2002. However, it is

noticed that the said O.A. was preferred by the Petitioner on 3rd April 2002,

i.e. almost after a period of 3½ years after his Appeal came to be rejected

by order dated 24th November 1998. The Tribunal has observed that, 'the

said O.A. suffers from delay and laches and on this ground alone, the

O.A. deserves to be dismissed'.

7. Indeed, there has been an inordinate delay and laches on the part

of the Petitioner in preferring O.A. The grounds made out by the

Petitioner, that he did not have financial capacity to engage an Advocate

and that he was unwell, would not cover the period of almost 3½ years. As

far as not having financial capacity to engage an Advocate is concerned,

the Petitioner could always have sought legal aid. Hence, this ground

cannot be considered as sufficient ground. As far as the other ground of

WP-8042-13.doc

Petitioner suffering from health problem is concerned, it cannot be said

that for 3½ years, Petitioner was suffering from medical problem so as to

stop him from filing O.A. Thus, it is seen that no sufficient ground was

made out for condonation of delay caused in filing O.A.

8. Hence, we cannot find any error in the order of the Tribunal,

wherein it is held that, 'the O.A. suffers from delay and laches and on this

ground alone, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed'. Looking to the facts of

this case, no interference is called for. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.

9. Rule is discharged.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

WP-8042-13.doc