SWAPAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer for his absorption in the Directorate of Audit, Government of Tripura. In this context, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 12.03.2010 under which shortly before his superannuation he was repatriated to Tripura Small Industries Corporation Limited under which the petitioner was holding substantive post.

(2.) The petitioner was sent on deputation to Directorate of Audit in the year 2002 and continued to work there till the impugned order of repatriation was passed on 12.03.2010. He crossed the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010. He has now filed this petition contending that he had a right to be absorbed in the Government service. He relied on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.11.2016 passed in WP(C) No.676 of 2015 and connected petitions in case of Sri Sebabrata Bhattacharjee v. The State of Tripura and others.

(3.) I am not inclined to entertain this petition only on the ground of gross delay and laches. As noted, the cause of action arose in the year 2010 when the petitioner contrary to his hope and expectations was repatriated to his parent organization without absorption in the organization where he was a deputationist. This order the petitioner has challenged by filing this petition in the month of November, 2019. 9(nine) years passed between the cause of action and filing the petition. Only grounds shown are that the petitioner had thereafter contacted serious illness and that under similar circumstances this Court in case of Sebabrata Bhattacharjee (supra) has given relief to the similarly situated employees. None of these grounds would persuade me to ignore such long and inordinate delay. As is well settled, though there is no fixed period of limitation prescribed for invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court, nevertheless the Court would not entertain petitions which are filed after gross delay and laches without explaining such inaction on part of the petitioner. Further as held by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536 a litigant cannot rely on a decision in case of another person to approach a Court of law after gross delay. Even otherwise, this Court had decided the said case in November, 2016. More than three years passed before the petitioner filed the present petition.