JAYSHREEBEN S BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. With the consent of both the sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today. We have heard Mr. Vishal Mehta learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vicky Mehta for the appellant and Mr. Digant Popat learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Manoj Popat for the respondent.

(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 04.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11045/2010.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that back-wages could have been claimed in the earlier writ petition. Once the claim was denied, it was not open to the appellant to claim back-wages by way of filing a second writ petition, as it would not be maintainable. Moreover, the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was filed after a period of about six years. We do not find any illegality with the order of the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 274 and has urged that even if there was a delay, writ petition can be entertained. We agree with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decision but, this decision does not apply to the facts of the instant case and hence, will not be of any held to the appellant.