AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners have raised a common grievance namely of being illegally terminated as drivers and also not being granted the benefit of regularization in service pursuant to the Government policy. Petitioners contend that they were engaged as full time drivers on daily wage basis in the year 2000/2003. Upon completion of 10 years of service in such capacity, they had a right to be regularized. Instead regularizing them their services were terminated in the year 2011. They filed these petitions in the year 2019.
The stand of the Government is that the services of the petitioners were not terminated but they had left their jobs voluntarily. The respondents would point out that Officer-in-Charge, Central Stores had written a letter to the higher authority pointing out that currently the wages paid for such casual work is extremely low and as a result of which large number of persons are leaving the jobs. He suggested that the remuneration be increased. Learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that way back in the year 2012, the names of the petitioners were shown in a list as having left their jobs.
It is neither possible not necessary for me in these petitions to decide these disputed questions and not inclined to entertain these petitions only on the ground of gross delay and laches. Concededly the petitioners were not engaged in service after 2011. Nearly 9 years later they have made a grievance of the illegal termination. It is true that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is well settled that such writ petition cannot be filed at any time. The same must be filed within reasonable period. Law does not favour those who are lethargic or tardy in pursuing their remedies. What a reasonable period must be judged in facts of each case. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are poor and unaware about their legal rights, they persuade me to ignore the delay to some extent. However, by no stretch of imagination a period of 9 years can be ignored in the context of approaching the writ Court.
In the results, petitions are dismissed.