The writ petition was barred by delay and laches, thereafter the merits are not required to be considered.-SC
October 07, 2021
The late husband of the respondent herein late Shri Rameshwar Lal was serving as Gram Sevak. Rameshwar Lal was suspended from service on the ground of willful absence from duty and not completing the audit. The administrative committee of Panchayat Samiti Nokha in its meting dated 26.02.1996 took a decision to remove him from service. Lal’s services were terminated vide order dated 16.12.1996. Thereafter the services of the said Rameshwar Lal – late husband of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 16.12.1996 invoking the provisions of Section 91 (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1994) and Rule 86 of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951. Late husband of the respondent preferred an appeal against the order of termination issued under Section 91 (4) of the Act 1994 before the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Bikaner. During the pendency of the said appeal the employee – Rameshwar Lal passed away on 18.09.2009. That thereafter the respondent herein preferred a writ petition before the High Court challenging the dismissal/termination order. Learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and quashed and set aside the order of termination dated 16.12.1996 and directed the appellants to give all consequential benefits to the respondent treating her husband to be superannuated on 16.12.1996. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench, by the impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved by this Appellants approached Apex Court. Held that the termination on 16.12.1996 was absolutely illegal and against the principles of natural justice is concerned, once we hold that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, thereafter the merits are not required to be considered. As observed hereinabove, the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the petition in the year 2012 challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1996, on the ground of delay and laches and more particularly when even otherwise if the termination order would not have been passed the deceased employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999. Appeal Allowed
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
VERSUS
SURJI DEVI
