- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Mehta for the respondent No. 3, the Official Liquidator and the learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.
(2.) THE relief claimed in this petition is for a mandate to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in any Government Department in pursuance of the U. P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in Government Services Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Absorption Rule, 1991 ). The petitioners claim to have been appointed on Work-charge basis on various Group-C and Group-D posts in the erstwhile U. P. Cement Corporation Limited prior to 1-10-1986. It is also pleaded that in pursuance of an order dated 1-10-1980 they were absorbed against regular posts. However, the said Corporation was wound up by an order of this Court dated 8-12-1999 which was upheld by the Apex Court vide order dated 31-7-2000 and the petition filed by the Trade union of the Employees of the Corporation was rejected. Identically placed certain employees of U. P. Textile Corporation Limited, which had also retrenched its employees, approached this Court for grant of benefit of the Absorption Rules of 1991 and in Writ Petition No. 1795 of 1998, Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , this Court vide its Judgment dated 29-4-1999 held that such retrenched employees, like the petitioners herein were entitled to absorption in other Government departments under the Absorption Rules, 1991. However, the petitioners herein took no action by approaching this Court earlier even though the right for absorption had accrued to them on 8-12-1999. Nevertheless, certain other employees of the Cement Corporation including Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey and others in Writ Petition No. 63344 of 2003 approached this Court claiming the benefit identical to that granted in Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava's case (supra) and this Court vide its order and Judgment dated 6-1-2004 directed absorption in any vacancy outside the purview of U. P. Public Service Commission. Similar Judgments were passed in the other cases also.
(3.) HOWEVER, the petitioners kept quiet and now after such prolonged delay have approached this Court with the explanation that they are residents of under developed place and when they came to know about one of the Judgments rendered in the case of Ramvir & Anr. v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 70878 of 2006, decided on 17-1-2007 they have approached this Court. In Ramveer's case the petitioner had approached this Court earlier when the petition was disposed off with a direction to the State to take a decision in their case, but that is not so in the present case. Though, no limitation is prescribed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to approach this Court, the aggrieved person should approach it within a reasonable time. The Court is very loath to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a person who has slept over his right for years together. In the present case, the petitioner did not approach this Court even after rendering of the judgment in Bageshwari's case (supra) on 29-4-1999 and even after the Judgment rendered in the case of Shailendra Kumar Pandey on 6-1-2004 and Madan Lal Gupta on 1-8-2005. No doubt some writ petitions were filed and disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider their claim, but it cannot be taken as a precedent to open a can of worms and give handle to all those sleepy retrenched employees to stake their claim whenever they feel like. The other explanation is that they made repeated representations. However, no details have been given and only a copy of one representation dated 5-4-2006 has been annexed which also does not give any details of the alleged earlier representations. Mere filing of repeated non-statutory and unsolicited representation cannot be taken as a defence or explanation for laches. The Apex Court about two scores of years ago in K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. , AIR 1967 SC 993 and again reiterated in Gyan Singh v. High Court Punjab & Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1894, has held that such explanation for inordinate delay and laches cannot be a ground for exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, 2006 (4) SCC 322.;