Union Of India & Anr. vs Sudesh Kumar Anand
2011 Latest Caselaw 2292 Del

$~63.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2738/2011

                                            Decided on : 28th April, 2011

       UNION OF INDIA & ANR.             ..... Petitioners
                     Through Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate

                               versus

       SUDESH KUMAR ANAND              ..... Respondent
                   Through Mr. G D Bhandari, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

1.     We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition

filed on 23rd March, 2011 assailing the order dated 5.11.2008

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) allowing OA 488/2008 filed by Mr.

Sudesh Kumar Anand, the respondent herein. There is more

than two years delay in preferring the present writ petition and

no explanation or cause has been set out and explained. The

delay in the present case is relevant as the respondent had

retired from service as DG (EM), Indian Tourism Development
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2738/2011                              Page 1 of 2
 Corporation (ITDC, for short) on 1.12.2000 and has been since

then waiting for payment of his due retirement benefits. The

respondent had worked with the petitioner from 5.1.1965 to

30.8.1974 before he joined ITDC. The respondent had applied

for appointment to ITDC through proper channel and was

selected and relieved by the petitioner to join ITDC. He retained

his lien for two years. The contention of the petitioner is that

there was some fault and the technical resignation was not

presented or accepted during the prescribed period.         By the

impugned order the Tribunal has directed that benefit of the

service for the period 5.1.1965 to 30.8.1974 to be given to the

respondent.

2.     It is more than 10 years since the respondent has retired

and as noticed the petitioners have approached this court after

delay of more than 2 years when the impugned order dated

5.11.2008 was passed by the Tribunal. Delay and laches read

with the facts stated above do not merit issue of notice. The writ

petition is dismissed in limine.


                                         SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 28, 2011/vld