ALLAH RAKHA SHAKTI KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues for determination being identical in both the two petitions so are taken up together.1. Precise factual background:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the petitions at the very outset contended that both the petitions are hit by latches. Petitioners of both the petitions were simply waiting on the fence watching for the results of the petitions of similarly situated employees, on noticing their success have come forward to claim the similar benefit. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in SWP No.2272/2002 captioned Vijay Kumar Khajuria Vs. J&K SRTC & Ors. In the backdrop of particular facts of the said case, petition was held to be hit by latches but so far as instant cases are concerned, these have their own factual background i.e. petitioner Allah Rakha has been pursuing his case, he has moved various representations and had earlier also filed writ petition (SWP) No.1717/2001 and it is only on the basis of the judgment rendered in the said petition, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. Thereafter he has filed the instant petition, which means he has not been waiting at the fence so as to watch result of other pending petitions. Similar is the position of petitioner Shakti Kumar who all along has been pursuing his grievances and has filed various representations, mention of which is made in the petition and copy of one such representation is also placed on record.

(3.) The petitioners of both the petitions cannot be said to have been waiting at the fence, their cases relatable to the latches are to be considered in their own factual background. In this view I am fortified by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court captioned: