Delhi High Court
Chander Pal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 4 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.2149/2015
% 4th March, 2015
CHANDER PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.3861/2015 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ W.P.(C) No.2149/2015 and C.M. No.3860/2015 (directions)
2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of the order passed by the
employer/respondent nos.2 & 3/Airport Authority of India retiring the
petitioner on his achieving the age of 60 years on 30.6.2010. This writ
petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable for various reasons as
detailed below.
3. Firstly, the writ petition cannot be filed in the year 2015 for
questioning an order of retirement passed on 29.6.2010. No doubt, the
Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ petitions, however, if the
petitioner could not have filed a suit in the year 2015 to challenge the
impugned order dated 29.6.2010, there is no reason why the limitation
period should be overlooked for filing of writ petition because otherwise it
would mean that where suits are time barred and where the respondents are
State, instead of a suit, a writ petition will be filed. This is impermissible in
law. The only way in which limitation is overlooked is when the petitioner
files a representation which is said to be pending for consideration and
therefore the petitioner does not come to the Court on account of the
pendency of his representation, of course depending upon facts of each case
and therefore in such cases the doctrine of delay and laches is not applied.
In the present case, cause of action accrued to the petitioner on 29.6.2010
when as per the petitioner he was illegally retired as his age was taken as 60
years as on 30.6.2010, and therefore, for a cause of action of June, 2010, a
writ petition cannot be filed in the year 2015. The writ petition is hence
liable to be dismissed by applying the doctrine of delay and laches.
4. Another reason for dismissing of the writ petition is that the
petitioner claims that the new date of birth fixed by the employer is different
than the date of birth as given in his affidavit, however, in this regard
petitioner admits that a medical board was constituted by the employer way
back in the year 2000 which has fixed the date of birth of the petitioner. The
petitioner however claims that this new date of birth was never informed to
him. On a query to the counsel for the petitioner, it is conceded that
nowhere in the writ petition an averment is made that the employer never
issued any document to the petitioner pertaining to his service record
including identity card etc after 2000 and which did not show the new date
of birth taken of the petitioner in 2000. Obviously, this averment is not
made because in the complete service record of the petitioner after the year
2000, and which must be to the knowledge of the petitioner, petitioner's date
of birth would have been shown in such a manner that he reaches 60 years as
on 30.6.2010. Petitioner therefore has no case, much less at this stage in
2015, to challenge the date of birth as per which he has been superannuated
on 30.6.2010.
5. Dismissed.
MARCH 04, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
