Md. Shamsul Hasan vs The State of Bihar and Others

We heard the counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant that the retrenchment of the appellant took place somewhere in the year 1991. He also does not dispute that the writ petition was filed in the year 2000. The delay of nine years, thus, is not disputed. However, the counsel for the appellant sought to explain the said delay by making submission that it has been observed in some of the orders passed by this Court relating to retrenchment of identical employees that the petitioners therein as well as similarly situated persons would be given relief by the department. The counsel would submit that based on that, a representation was made by the appellant. The said representation has not yet been decided and, thus, there is no delay.

We are unable to accept the submission of the counsel for the appellant. If the representation made by the appellant was not decided by the authorities within a reasonable time, it was not expected of the appellant to wait for indefinite period or as long as he wanted.

In our considered view, the consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal flaw. Nine years'' delay remains unexplained. L.P.A, does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine.