WPSS/775/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2281 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
sl. No   Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPSS No.775 of 2021
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via video conferencing).

Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Additional CSC, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioner, who has contended in the present writ petition, is that he was appointed by the respondents as a Group D employee in the year 1994, and he continued to serve with the respondents in the said capacity for more than over ten years. Hence, he was entitled to be considered for regularization, as well as for the payment of the minimum of pay scale, on the principles of equal pay for equal work.

For the said purposes, the petitioner has filed an earlier writ petition being WPSS No.986 of 2019, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 16.05.2019, directing the respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary Forest, Government of Uttarakhand, to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, based on the recommendations made by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, dated 30.03.2017. The respondent No.1, herein, by virtue of the impugned order, which has now been put to challenge in the present writ petition has rejected the representation of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 02.08.2019. The writ petition now, which has been preferred by the petitioner has been filed after almost two years of the passing of the impugned order.

Unfortunately in the writ petition, there is no reason given as to why there was a delay on the part of the petitioner to approach the Court in filing the present writ petition and there is no whisper in the pleadings to explain the laches.

Hence I am of the view that a litigant, who is not vigilant enough to make an appropriate pleadings in the writ petition, particularly, when he is giving a challenge to the order at a highly belated stage, almost after the expiry of almost two years, no solace could be extended to him, as his rights are represented though professional, who is suppose to be more vigilante while extending his pleadings in the writ petition. Hence, on this ground itself, the writ petition suffers from the vices of laches. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 07.07.2021

NR/