GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the pleadings of the instant writ petition, it seems, that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year, 1970. In any case, it is clear from the averments made in the writ petition, that the petitioner has not discharged his duties since the year, 1970.

(2.) There are certain observations, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, lead to the conclusion, that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on account of his involvement in some criminal cases. It is apparent from the orders placed on the record of this case as Annexures P-2 to P-5, that all the criminal cases were disposed of by August, 1974. Despite the aforesaid, the petitioner does not seem to have taken any steps for his reinstatement in the employment of the respondents. Now, after a period of 36 years since his termination from the employment CWP No.8798 of 2006 Page numbers of the respondents, he has filed the instant writ petition, claiming reinstatement and full back wages.

(3.) In order to tender an explanation on the issue of delay, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions rendered by this Court in Bidhi Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1998(4) RSJ 448, Kundan Singh Vs. The Chief Secretary to Government Punjab and others, 1998(4) RSJ 206, Ex. Naik Manjit Singh Vs. Government of India and others, 2000 (1) RSJ 154 and Balwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2000(1) RSJ 516. We have considered the matter in its totality. However, in view of the factual position, noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the instant writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The same is, accordingly, dismissed on account of delay and laches.