KHEEM SINGH BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner's salary from 01.07.2006 to 31.07.2009 for the period the petitioner discharged his duties as an officiating Principal. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2009, and has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the present writ petition, only on 20.02.2019, i.e. nearly 10 years after he retired from service.

(2.) When we asked Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why we should entertain a writ petition which suffers from inordinate delay and laches, Learned Counsel sought time to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the delay. In his supplementary affidavit the petitioner claims that he suffered from spondylitis; he secured treatment at Delhi for two years; and he is still undergoing treatment. Spondylitis is not a debilitating disorder which would disable the petitioner from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court within time.

(3.) In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal : (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court observed: