Jharkhand High Court
The Union Of India Through Its Secretary ... vs Rabindra Nath Kumhar on 15 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:19137-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 564 of 2025
1. The Union of India through its Secretary (Posts) & Chairman
Postal Service Board, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002)
3. The Director of Postal Services, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002).
4. The Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, RN Division, GPO
Campus, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002)
...... Petitioners
Versus
Rabindra Nath Kumhar, aged about 62 years, Son of Late Sukhdeo
Kumhar, Resident of Village Bara Muri, Station Road, P.O.- Chhota
Muri, P.S.-Silli, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001
.... Respondent
With
W.P.(S) No. 164 of 2025
1. The Union of India through its Secretary (Posts) & Chairman
Postal Service Board, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002)
3. The Director of Postal Services, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002).
4. The Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, RN Division, GPO
Campus, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002)
...... Petitioners
Versus
Balmiki Singh, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Ram Briksha Singh,
Resident of Lower Chutia, Shiopuri Colony, P.O.- Krishnapuri, P.S.
Chutia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834002
.... Respondent
With
W.P.(S) No. 565 of 2025
1. The Union of India through its Secretary (Posts) & Chairman
Postal Service Board, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002)
3. The Director of Postal Services, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002).
4. The Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, RN Division, GPO
Campus, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002)
...... Petitioners
-1 of 4-
2025:JHHC:19137-DB
Versus
Sanjay Kumar, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Basudeo Soti, Retired
Sorting Assistant, Resident of Kokar, near Titli Basti, Sundar Bihar, P.O.
RMCH, P.S. -Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834002
.... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
For the Respondents: Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Pronounced on: 15 .07.2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. These three Writ petitions have been filed by the Union of India on
22.11.2024 challenging common judgment rendered on 13.09.2022 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in
O.A./051/00278/2021, O.A./051/00279/2021 and O.A./051/00280/2021.
2. In all the three Writ petitions there is no explanation offered for the
delay of more than 2 years in filing the Writ petitions challenging the
judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. The petitioners in the Writ petitions are the Union of India and
their officers.
4. It appears that after the judgment was pronounced by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in the above O.A.s on 13.09.2022 granting
certain reliefs to the private respondents, the petitioners in the Writ
petitions had filed Review Applications being RA/051/0002/2023,
RA/051/0004/2023 and RA/051/0005/2023 and Review Applications
were dismissed on 18.05.2023.
-2 of 4-
2025:JHHC:19137-DB
5. More than one and half years later these Writ petitions have been
filed by the petitioners without offering any explanation for the laches in
filing the said Writ petitions.
6. Moreover, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondents
that the Review Applications were in fact filed before the Central
Administrative Tribunal seeking review of the judgment dt. 13.09.2022 of
the said Tribunal only on 12.04.2023 after passage of 210 days without
explaining the delay in filing the Review Applications as well.
7. Though there is no period of limitation provided for filing of a Writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is settled law
that ordinarily a Writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time.
8. In this case, the petitioners cannot claim that they were disabled in
any way from takings steps to file the Writ petition challenging the
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal rendered on 13.09.2022
till 22.11.2024. They have massive administrative machinery assisting
them such as panel lawyers of substantial experience and the petitioners
also cannot plead any dearth of financial resources.
9. Counsel for the petitioners has not denied that there was
considerable delay in filing of the Review Applications by the petitioners
before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Review Applications
came to be dismissed on 18.05.2023.
10. Thereafter, admittedly the private respondents had filed Contempt
Petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 13.09.2023 and
notice was issued in the Contempt Petition on 15.12.2023 which was
received by the petitioners.
-3 of 4-
2025:JHHC:19137-DB
11. The petitioners then chose to wait till 22.11.2024 and leisurely filed
the Writ petitions.
12. No explanation is offered by the petitioners as pointed out above
for not challenging the order passed in the Central Administrative
Tribunal for almost two years and for one and half years after Review
Applications were dismissed.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered
opinion that this is not a fit case for entertaining the Writ petitions in view
of the laches on the part of the petitioners particularly when all the private
respondents are retired persons even by the date of filing of the O.A.
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and it would be unjust on the
part of the petitioners to harass them further by dragging them into more
litigation.
14. We therefore, are not inclined to entertain the Writ petitions and
the same are dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the
petitioners.
15. All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
VK
-4 of 4-
