PRASSANNA MAHANTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.99 passed in Civil Rule No. 1703/98.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State Counsel, Assam. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the petitioner-appellants were working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati, as temporary employees at a consolidated amount of Rs.900/- P.M., but services of such employees, numbering about 60, were terminated by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 31.5.93. Some of those employees approached this Court by filing a Civil Rule. The Civil Rule being rejected, they preferred an appeal which was allowed. The order of termination of the petitioners were set aside and they were directed to be accommodated, which was complied with by the respondents. It is informed that apart from those who had approached this Court by filing a petition in the year 1994, 6 other persons had also approached this Court and they also got the relief. The relief was granted in the year 1996. The present petitioners-appellants approached this Court by filing a petition in the year 1998. The learned Single Judge refused to grant relief to the appellants as there was delay of 5 years in filing the petition challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1993. Therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellants-petitioners, they have been non suited.

(3.) In the writ appeal an additional affidavit has been filed to explain the laches. Two documents were annexed, supposed to be representations preferred by the spetitioners in the year 1994. Nothing seems to have been done after moving that representation in the year, 1994.