Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1009/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1009 of 2010
=========================================================
K
R TANK EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHAIRMAN
KANDLA PORT TRUST - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ SHASTRI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the action of discrimination of the respondent authority
towards the petitioner and also to direct the respondent authority to
consider and give effect to the service record of the petitioner by
granting seniority and consequential relief and effect by treating
him as having been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer,
Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date
from where the junior of the petitioner have been promoted and direct
the respondent authority to give all consequential monetary benefits
to the petitioner to be paid with appropriate rate of interest to
be determined by this Court.
2.0 Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. Admittedly, the
petitioner is claiming his rights for seniority and consequential
relief and effect by treating him as having been promoted to the post
of Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer from the year
1996. This petition has been filed on 26.10.2009. In other words, to
claim certain benefits, which were due in 1996, this writ petition
has been filed only in the year 2009, viz.
after a period of more than ten years.
3.0 Looking to
the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India &
Ors. reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 1330, wherein,
it is held as under:
10. …….If
petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally
the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be
granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High
Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on
merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference,
it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone.
4.0 Considering
the facts of the case in the background of the principle laid down in
the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that the petition deserves
to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
5.0 Consequently,
the petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, summarily
rejected. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI,
J.]
niru*
Top