- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner -appellant while working as Electrician had preferred a Writ Petition No. 6367(SS) of 2001 with the prayer that the services may be regularized w.e.f. 19.7.1998. Submission is that petitioner -appellant is entitled for regularization in pursuance to government order dated 30.4.1993. However, learned Single Judge had not decided the petition on merit on the ground that he has already attained the age of superannuation and retired employee cannot be regularized.
(2.) IT is not disputed that when the writ petition was filed in the year 2001 the petitioner was in service. However, on 5.3.2014 petitioner -appellant has already superannuated. Question cropped up whether on account of pendency of writ petition in this Court petitioner is suffered adversely. It is well settled proposition of law that no one should suffer on account of lapses or inaction on the part of the Court. Admittedly, in case, a writ petition was decided in the year 2001 or before the age of superannuation i.e. 31.8.2006, this Court would have interfered and direction could have been passed to consider the petitioner's case for regularization.
(3.) IN a case S.S.Barathokey Vs. Chairman U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corpn Ltd and another,1993 11 LCD 487 this court after considering Apex court judgements held that on account of pendency of writ petition or for any inaction on the part of court or its employees, litigant cannot be put to suffer. The benefit which may be available during the pendency of writ petition may be made available to the employee concerned even after retirement from service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, 1966 AIR(SC) 1631, has observed in para 6 as under: - "It is, therefore, quite clear that if there was an error the Court and its officers largely contributed to it. It is no doubt true that a litigant must be vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to Court and asks for the assistance of the Court so that his obligations under a decree might be fulfilled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices, to ensure that the correct information is furnished. If the Court in supplying the information makes a mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it does not altogether cease, is at least shared by the Court. If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself caused. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: "Actus curiae neminem gravabit.";