LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI Vs. DHARAMPAL
LAWS(SC)-1990-5-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on May 04,1990

LT.GOVERNOR OF DELHI Appellant
VERSUS
DHARAMPAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

WALAITI RAM GUPTA VS. PUNJAB STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1997-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAM PROPERTIES VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-2-28] [REFFERED TO : (1990) 4 SCC 13 : 1990 LAB IC 1660 7,10]
N KRISHNAMURTY VS. MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1994-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. ALL MANIPUR REGULAR POST VACANCIES SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(GAU)-1995-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANGI RAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
AKKULALAH R VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1996-3-73] [FOLLOWED ON]
AHMED SHER KHAN VS. STATE OF M P & 2 ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-495] [REFERRED]
CHAYAN DASGUPTA VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2000-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMESH KUMAR GAUTAM & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-301] [REFERRED TO]
HOWOTO SEMA VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2003-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT RANJAN ROY AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2000-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
SAHDEVSINH J GOHIL VS. R C DIMRI [LAWS(GJH)-2002-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR BHAWASAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
CHAYAN DASGUPTA VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2000-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN LAL S/O BHUWAN PARIHAR VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-526] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. THE REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-280] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1995-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN FORMING VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR S B S [LAWS(SIK)-1997-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT BAHADUR KHATRI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-1997-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1992-4-9] [DISTINGUISHED]
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. SULTAN MOHD [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
AKBAR ALI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR YADAV & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-300] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUR MOHD KHAN VS. STATE OF M P & 2 ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-294] [REFERRED]
NIHAL CHANDRA JAIN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-289] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK MOHAN SETHI VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-392] [REFERRED TO]
VASAVI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING VS. A SURYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1991-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
A. SRINIWAS RAO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2006-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRIT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2002-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIR UDDIN AHMED S/O MD MOHAMMAD ALI AND ORS VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-147] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AJANT BORO [LAWS(GAU)-2008-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LTD VS. RAJASTHAN TEXTILE MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT BHAWANI [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL CHANDRA AGRAWAL VS. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MPH)-1992-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
GLORY PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. LT GOVERNOR GOVT OF NCT [LAWS(DLH)-2003-5-125] [REFERRED]
MADHUBALA VERMA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1996-7-187] [REFERRED TO]
FIROZUDDIN KHAN VS. STATE OF M P & 2 ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-494] [REFERRED]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(ST)-1997-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
V SAMBASIVA RAO VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(APH)-1992-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
S KRISHNASAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-47] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ray, J. - (1.)These appeals arose out of the judgment and order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi directing that the petitioners (respondents in these appeals) will be entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in the writ petitions CW P Nos. 278 of 1978 and 937 of 1978.
(2.)The matrix of the case, in short, is that the services of the respondents who wore appointed as constables in Delhi Police in the years 1964-66 were terminated because of their participation in the agitation along with other police constables in April 1967. In view of the public controversy and in deference to the views expressed in Parliament, a large number of agitating constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants. Later, in view of the assurance given in the Parliament by the then Home Minister, prosecutions were withdrawn and the dismissed constables were reinducted into service. Some of the dismissed constables filed Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 26169 and 106/7O in the High Court of Delhi and the High Court by its judgment dated October 1, 1975 quashed the order of termination and the petitioners in that case were declared to be throughout in service. The Police Administration preferred separate appeals being LPA Nos. 24 and 25 of 1976. Both these appeals were dismissed as barred by time and the judgment of the High Court dated October 1, 1975 became final.
(3.)Subsequently, some other constables whose services were similarly terminated but were not reinstated in service even as fresh entrants, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi being CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978. These writ petitions were heard by Anand, J. who rejected the contention raised by the respondents in the writ petitions regarding the delay and laches in moving the writ petitions, allowed the Writ petitions quashing the impugned order of termination declaring that the petitioners will be deemed to have been in service and would be treated as such subject to certain conditions. The Police Administration filed LPA against this judgment which was dismissed on August 29, 1983. Thereafter the respondents herein filed the writ petitions in the High Court against the order of termination of their services praying for quashing of the orders of termination and for reinstating them in service with effect from the respective dates of their termination of services and to treat them as being in service throughout and to award them all consequential benefits. These writ petitions were subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi. The Tribunal while rejecting the plea of the respondents that the petitioners should be denied any relief because of delay and laches held that the claims of the petitioners (respondents in these appeals) was identical to the claim of the petitioners-in CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978 whose petitions were allowed by the High Court of Delhi. The Tribunal further held that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in CWP Nos. 270 and 937 of 1978.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.