AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
I have joined this Bench online through video conferencing.
Shri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri T.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
Through this OA, which is registered as Diary No. 1798/2022, the applicants have sought for the following reliefs:-
“i.Issue a direction to quash order dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure no.1) passed by respondent no. 2 on the representation submitted by the applicants.
ii.Issue a direction directing the respondents to reinstate the applicants in the services with effect from the date of oral termination from services on 01.09.2022.
iii.Issue a direction directing the respondents to appoint them as regular employee and pay them the salary from 01.09.2002.
iv.any suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.
v.Award the cost of the petition to the applicants.”
It is seen that the applicants have impugned an order dated 01.09.2004 and the substantive relief sought by the applicants are (i) quashing of the said order, (ii) to reinstate the applicants in the service with effect from the date of their oral termination from services that was way back on 01.09.2022. (iii) the applicants be granted appointments as a regular employee and pay the salary w.e.f. 01.09.2002. It is not in dispute that almost 20 years have passed, since the applicants have been terminated by way of an oral termination order and that the impugned order is dated 01.09.2004 which was passed, while disposing a pending representation of the applicants.
The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the OA and submits that the OA is highly belated as the impugned order itself is dated 01.09.2004. Further, the relief sought by the applicants cannot be granted at this stage as the applicants were employed through contractor on daily wage basis and where never the employees of the institute. There was no direct employment between the respondents and the applicants.
At this stage the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the reasons for delay in filing the present OA is that the applicants are regularly approaching the respondents since 2004 for redressal of their grievance, however of no avail. However this submission is not supported by any documents. It is therefore a balled submission.
In view of the above, I am not convinced with the reasons given in the delay condonation application. Accordingly, the MA No. 1371/2022 (Delay Condonation Application) is dismissed and the OA, which is registered as Dy No. 1798/2022 is also dismissed. All the associated MA are also dismissed. No costs.