Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Special Police Officer (SPO) in the year 1992 in District Sangrur. The petitioner is stated to have worked on such post till the year 1996. His services were dispensed with. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that his claim for reinstatement of service be considered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that repeated representations have been made to the respondent/authorities and even refers to the last representation dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-2). Counsel accordingly prays that a direction be issued to the respondent/authorities to consider and decide his representation dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-2).

I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition is wholly misconceived. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with in the year 1996. Even if the petitioner has any right seeking reinstatement, the same should have been agitated within a reasonable period of time. It is well settled that filing of repeated representations would not vest in such an employee a fresh cause of action. The petitioner can not be permitted to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to revive such a belated claim which would otherwise be defeated only on the ground of delay and latches. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.