MOTI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a Constable of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, was terminated from service on 8th of July, 1973 after giving him one month's notice. The appellant had been terminated in the background that he had participated in the PAC revolt which had occurred in the year 1973. A large number of such Constables who were similarly situate, had approached this Court and certain directions were issued by the High Court to decide their representations and some writ petitions were also disposed of with a direction to reinstate such terminated employees. The Constables fell into two categories, one who were permanent in service and the others who were treated to be temporary and their services had been dispensed with after giving one month's notice. The matter had been engaging the attention of the State Government pursuant to the aforesaid litigation, which was being contested and ultimately the State Government on its own issued a Government Order on 7th September 1998 for reinstatement. This policy decision was followed by another clarification on 13th November, 1998 extending the benefit to permanent as well as temporary Constables, whose services had been dispensed with after giving one month's notice.

(2.) This policy decision led to a spate of writ petitions being filed before this Court. In some matters, the writ petitions were allowed and the termination orders were quashed, against which the State went up in Special Appeal. A bunch of these matters came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the State of U.P. and Others v. Gajadhar Pandey, 2003 1 ESC 221. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said decision has also been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the said decision, the State Government had taken a stand that these Police Constables had approached the Court after a lapse of more than 24 years, and therefore, this Court should decline to exercise discretion on the ground of laches. The aforesaid contention of the State was rejected by the Division Bench which is as follows:

(3.) The appeals filed by the State were dismissed and as noted above, the said judgment has been affirmed by the Apex Court.