Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2887/2000 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2887 of 2000
=========================================================
DHIRAJSINH
J DOSUMIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BIREN A VAISHNAV for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
GC MAZMUDAR for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR HG MAZMUDAR for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 09/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for directions to
treat the period of petitioner’s absence from 1.6.71 to 31.12.71 as
admissible leave and to treat the petitioner as having retired from
1.1.72.
The
brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1
Petitioner was appointed as work-charge- driver from
1.11.1961 in the Narmada Project Division no.1. He was transferred
on loan service to the Irrigation Investigation Division, Kevadia
Colony with effect from 23.7.1970, where he has worked upto
31.5.1971.
2.2
Due to sickness, petitioner proceeded on leave from 1.6.1971 and
submitted leave report along with medical certificate. His leave was
neither refused nor sanctioned. On 1.1.1972, when he went to
resume duty, he was not allowed to work and upon inquiry he came to
know that the entry of his service during the period of 1.6.1971
to 31.12.1971 was not reflected in his service record.
2.3 In
the meantime, Irrigation Investigation Division was closed down and
the petitioner went to his native place. The petitioner made an
application to the respondent by letter dated 28.10.1993.
Petitioner made requests to the respondents to sanction his leave for
a period from 1.6.1971 to 31.12.1971 so that he might complete 10
years of qualifying service to be eligible for pension. The said
request came to be rejected by order dated 4.2.1999. Hence
this petition.
3 Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.
4.
The
petitioner has retired in the year 1996. The request to consider his
leave was made in the year 1993
and the present petition has been filed in the year 2000. The
petition is inordinately delayed. In the case of Shiv Dass V. Union
of India and Others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1330. it is held that if
petition is filed beyond reasonable period,say, three years,
normally court would reject the same or restrict the
relief. Therefore this petition at this stage cannot be entertained.
The same is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as
to costs.
(K.S.JHaveri,J.)
*Himanshu
Top