- (1.) Heard Sri Col. R. A. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned central government standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the orders dated 19.1.1995 and 18.1.1995 whereby he has been shown discharged from service. This Court by its order dated 24.5.2016 had directed the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit explaining the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. Thereupon a supplementary affidavit has been filed.
(2.) It is stated that by the impugned orders the petitioner was shown as discharged from service on 18.1.1995 on "own request". In para-4 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that the petitioner preferred a large number of representations dated 19.8.1996, 16.9.1996 and 26.6.1998 but did not get any response and, therefore, he filed Writ Petition No.44094 of 1998. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 4.12.2006 as 'not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India'. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal no.131 of 2007 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12.8.2009 as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to any appropriate forum. It is to be noted that order of 4.12.2006 remained intact. In para-6 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that the petitioner submitted a number of representations dated 20.7.1999, 2.9.1999, 23.10.199, 17.11.199, 25.4.2000, 17.8.2000, 20.10.2000 and 12.8.2002 reiterating his request for being taken back in service in the GREF but he did not get any favourable response. It is also stated that he was able to get himself enrolled in Defence Security Corps (DSC) or the Territorial Army (TA) or to get recruited in GREF as a fresh candidate but nothing was said about his termination/discharge by order dated 19.1.1995. In para-7 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that the petitioner filed Writ Petition no.58137 of 2009 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 1.11.2012 transferred the matter to the Armed Forces Tribunal where it was renumbered as Transfer Application No.106 of 2012. It is also stated that the Armed Forces Tribunal rejected the Transfer Application by the order dated 2.1.2013 as being without jurisdiction.
(3.) The petitioner is stated to have filed Writ Petition No.52955 of 2014. On 7.10.2014 the Court granted time to learned counsel for the respondents to seek instruction. It is also stated that erroneously instead of Secretary, Ministry of Defence it was mentioned as Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in the writ petition. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the petition was not maintainable. Thereafter the case was listed on 22.4.2016 and on that date the petitioner got the petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition it is noticed that the earlier Writ Petition No.44094 of 1998 was dismissed by this Court on merit by order dated 4.12.2006 and the Special Appeal filed against the said order was got withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Therefore, the order dated 4.12.2006 had become final. So far as the termination order of the petitioner was concerned, the petitioner may have made repeated representations as referred above from 1999 to 2002. Repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation. Law in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court in the following cases:- The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Mann vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Anr., 1980 4 SCC 266 - has held in para 3, which reads as under:- "3. In regard to the petitioner's claim for promotion to the Selection Grade post in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from 1st November, 1966, and to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from 1st May, 1967 on the basis that a post had been reserved in each of the services for a member of the Scheduled Castes, it seems to us that the claim is grossly belated. The writ petition was filed in this Court in 1978, about eleven years after the dates from which the promotions are claimed. There is no valid explanation for the delay. That the petitioner was making successive representations during this period can hardly justify our overlooking the inordinate delay. Relief must be refused on that ground. It is not necessary, in the circumstances, to consider the further submission of the respondents that the provision on which the petitioner relies as the basis of his claim is concerned with the appointment only of members of the Scheduled Castes to posts in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service and not to recruitment by promotion to that service.";