Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TIRATH DASS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tirath Dass v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-6719-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2329 (6 April 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 6719 of 2006

Date of decision 2.5.2006

Tirath Dass .. petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner M.M.Kumar, J.

The solitary claim made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for grant of monetary benefits on the post of Head Clerk from 3.4.1986 to 18.10.1991. The petitioner was refused the afore-mentioned relief by an order dated 29.9.1998 (Annexure P.6) and he was granted the benefit of re-fixation w.e.f. 3.4.1986. The afore-mentioned relief is sought on the ground that the respondents have refused the claim by passing an order dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure P.13)

After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the instant petition is highly belated as a period of more than seven years have passed since the cause of action had arisen to him for the first time after the passing of the order dated 29.9.1998 (Annexure P.6). The filing of representation or the rejection of the claim by the respondents on 24.2.2006 (Annexure P.13) will not result into condonation of such a huge delay. The Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. AIR 1990 SC 10 has held that the cause of action would arise to the petitioner even in cases where the representation has been made after the expiry of six months. However, in cases of this nature where writ of certiorari is sought for quashing the order dated 29.9.1998 (Annexure P.6), the cause of action would be deemed to have arisen to the petitioner on the passing of final order and there was no scope for making any representation.

CWP 6719 of 2006 .2.

Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches.

(M.M.Kumar)

Judge

(M.M.S.Bedi )

2. 5.2006 Judge okg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.