High Court of Meghalaya
Shri. Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India Represented By on 5 April, 2024
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
Serial No.32
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 291of 2023
Date of Decision :05.04.2024
Shri. Dharambir Singh,
Son of Late Jogi Ram,
Village: Badshas Machari,P.O: Raudi,
P.S: Sonepat, District: Sonepat,
State: Haryana,
Pin Code: 131001.
....Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Union of India represented by
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Director General Assam Rifles,
Mahanideshalaya,
(The Directorate General of Assam Rifles,
Shillong, Meghalaya).
3. Commandant,
11 Assam Rifles,
C/o 99 APO.
....Respondents.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.D.Upadhaya, Adv.
Mr. H.Yadav, Adv.
Ms. A.Synrem, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N.Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. S.Rumthao, Adv.
1
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. By way of the instant writ application, the writ petitioner is seeking
reinstatement of his services by extending the benefits of a judgment and
order dated 31-08-2022, passed in WP(C). No. 62 of 2015 along with other
connected writ petitions and also for payment of allowances and
admissible dues for services rendered for the period upto 01-06-2016.
2. The brief facts which are necessary, are that the writ petitioner who
was serving as a Rifleman Cook had enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 28-
05-1985 and under the provisions of Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the Directorate General Assam Rifles
letter No. II.31019/Review/2004/Adm-III, dated 18th November, 2004,
having been found unfit for retention in services beyond 30 years' service,
and was retired from service on 01-06-2015. The petitioner at that point of
time being aggrieved with the order of retirement, had then filed a writ
petition being WP(C). No. 101 of 2015, and this Court then by order dated
14-05-2015, as an interim measure had stayed the said order of retirement
and as such, the petitioner continued in service. The writ petition then
came to be dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 15-03-2016,
and as such, as per the directions of the Court, the petitioner stood retired.
3. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner had by then submitted his
pensionary papers for payment of pension. It appears that before the
Gauhati High Court, similar matters had been agitated wherein by order
dated 15-06-2016, passed in a bunch of writ petitions, the orders of
premature retirement were found legally unsustainable and were set aside
and quashed.
4. Parallely, the other writ petitioners in the other connected writ
petitions which had come to be dismissed together with the writ petition of
the petitioner, had preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench of this
Court, whereafter, on hearing the same were remanded for fresh
reconsideration before the Single Bench. These matters then, came to be
disposed of by an order dated 31-08-2022, allowing the same, and
directions passed therein, for reinstatement and for payment of arrears,
salary and allowances as due.
5. It is in this backdrop that the writ petitioner who had abandoned
proceedings before the Courts after being unsuccessful in WP(C). No. 101
of 2015, has now sought for directions that the benefits of the order dated
31-08-2022 also be extended and he be reinstated in service.
6. Mr. S.D.Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that though it is not disputed that after the said dismissal in the first round
of litigation, the petitioner had not agitated for his rights, he however,
contends that the fact that other similarly situated petitioners had been
granted relief, no discrimination can be accorded to him and he should be
given similar treatment and be allowed to continue in service. He further
submits that even for the period for which he served by virtue of the
interim order passed by this Court, he has not received the pay and
allowances as admissible. He therefore prays for directions to be passed for
reinstatement of his services and for further directions for payment of the
period of service that has remained unpaid.
7. Dr. N.Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. S.Rumthao, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the writ petition
is hopelessly barred by the laches of the writ petitioner, who after the
judgment had been rendered in WP(C). No. 101 of 2015, accepted the
same and had proceeded on retirement. He submits that on this ground
alone, no consideration can be given to the writ petitioner who has not
been vigilant to safeguard his rights or agitated the same at the relevant
point of time. With regard to the period served under the interim orders of
this Court, the learned DSGI submits that if the submission is correct, then
whatever legitimate dues are payable, the same will be disbursed to the
writ petitioner.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that in
similar other matters where the parties had been vigilant and pursued the
matter to a logical conclusion, they have obtained the fruits of litigation
and have been reinstated in service with their orders of premature
retirement being quashed. The aspect of delay however, has to be viewed
very seriously by this Court, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner as is patent
from the materials on record and as per the pleadings, had for all purposes
abandoned his case, and after eight long years, has by way of this instant
writ petition, resorted to a fishing expedition in the hope that some relief
might be forthcoming.
9. Without adverting to any authorities in the matter, it has been settled
in inumerable cases that delay is a factor that cannot be ignored, except for
circumstances that are beyond the control of the petitioner or parties. In the
instant case, no reasons have been made out, nor any explanation offered
as to what prevented the writ petitioner from pursuing his legal remedy
before the Courts after dismissal of his writ petition.
10. In this view of the matter, the writ petition being hopelessly delayed
by the laches and lapses on the part of the writ petitioner, the relief as
claimed, after such a long delay cannot be granted, but however, the
respondents are directed to examine the aspect of the payment of pay and
allowances of the writ petitioner for the period he served after the interim
order was passed by this Court till the dismissal of WP(C). No. 101 of
2015 thereof.
11. With the aforementioned directions, this writ petition stands
disposed of. It is understood that the dues if any, shall be adjusted against
the pension that had already been received.
12. No order as to costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
05.04.2024
"Samantha PS"
