AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 262 wordsVipin Sanghi, CJ
1) This is the third writ petition preferred by the petitioner to assail the Office Order dated 04.05.2017, whereby the petitioner was reinstated with break in service for her unauthorized absence between 04.06.2012 to 15.05.2017.
2) The first writ petition preferred by the petitioner, i.e., Writ Petition (S/B) No. 541 of 2018, was withdrawn by her on 26.10.2018, with liberty to file afresh. The petitioner then did not file any petition for nearly four years. She filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 391 of 2022, which too she withdrew on 15.07.2022. Once again, liberty was sought to file fresh petition. Pertinently, while dismissing the said petition as withdrawn, and granting her liberty, the Court observed that the said order would not be construed as if the Court had condoned the delay in challenging the Office Order dated 04.05.2017.
3) Now, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner once again to assail the Office Order dated 04.05.2017. In our view, the present petition is highly belated. The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.10.2018. The petitioner took four years to assail the order dated 04.05.2017.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pandemic had intervened in the meantime. We do not find any merit in this submission. The pandemic hit the world, and, particularly, India, only in March 2020. There is no pandemic till then. The petitioner had sufficient time to file the writ petition between 26.10.2018 and March 2020.
5) For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition on the ground of delay and laches.