C LIANTHANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.Thangkanglova, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Govt. Advocate, Mizoram appearing on behalf of the State-Respondents.

(2.) The only grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that he was given compulsory retirement with effect from 1.8.88 vide office order dated 27.8.88 (Annexure VI to the writ petition) before his superannuation without affording him any opportunity of hearing. He approached the authorities to reinstate him by reviewing the impugned order by submitting several representations but no action was taken. It is contended that as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Admittedly, this writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order only in the year of 1998 i.e. on 8.9.98 after a lapse of about ten years. No explanation whatsoever has been set out in this petition for such delay in seeking redress before this writ Court. On this count of inordinate delay itself, this writ petition is, in my considered opinion liable to be dismissed.