PRABHAT KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Counsel duly assisted by Mr. D.S. Bist, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as a Booking Clerk in the year 1978 and on account of his domestic problems, he submitted a letter dated 2.6.1998 requesting the employers that he should be allowed to be given the voluntary retirement w.e.f. 2.6.1998. The respondents considered his request and came to a conclusion that the voluntary retirement cannot be accepted since under the voluntary retirement scheme, the petitioner had not completed the minimum number of years in service nor had crossed the minimum age as required under the scheme. The employers, by an order dated 1.9.1998, found that since the petitioner was not reporting for work since 2nd June, 1998 and was not interested in the service, the employers treating the voluntary retirement application of the petitioner as a resignation letter, accepted the petitioner's resignation w.e.f. 1.9.1998. The matter came to a rest thereafter. It is alleged that the petitioner gave, a representation dated 9.10.1998 which is alleged to have been sent under a certificate of posting in which only he has protested that he had submitted a voluntary retirement application and not a resignation letter. It transpires that the matter was not pursued and, thereafter, the petitioner woke up and made a representation dated 23rd March, 2004 requesting the employers to withdraw their order dated 1st September, 1998. This application was rejected by the respondents by an order dated 30th September, 2005 and armed with this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that his claim is within the period of limitation.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The employers had accepted that application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement treating it to be a resignation letter w.e.f. 1st September, 1998. The services of the petitioner came to an end on 1st September, 1998. The petitioner did not stir in the matter and kept silent for almost six years and, thereafter, made a representation which was decided by the employer in the year 2005. Such decision on the representation of the petitioner cannot enlarge the period of limitation. Nothing has been indicated by the petitioner as to why he could not appeal against the order dated 1.9.1998 before the appellant authority as provided under Regulation 69 of the U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Other than Officers) Service, Regulations, 1981 nor has it been indicated in the writ petition as to what restrained the petitioner from not approaching the writ Court earlier. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this belated stage. The writ petition is dismissed.