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
23 paragraphs · 412 words K.M. JOSEPH, C.J
There is a delay of 96 days in filing Special Appeal No. 92 of 2018. In the other connected appeals, delay has already been condoned.Â
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, Delay Condonation Application No. 1590 of 2018 is allowed. Delay in filing Appeal No. 92 of 2018 is
condoned. Â
The appellant is the respondent in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed seeking the benefit of judgment of this Court in Special Appeal
No. 40 of 2014 with connected matters. Â
In the judgment, the learned Single Judge has in fact noted the stand of the appellant that the case is covered by the judgment of the Division
Bench. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition as follows:-
“Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special
Appeal No. 40 of 2014. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for release of retrial / pensionary benefits strictly in
conformity with the ratio of the judgment cited hereinabove within a period of ten weeks from today.â€
 Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that the controversy is concluded by the judgment of the Division
Bench.  He would submit that there is laches on the part of the writ petitioner and, in fact, it is pointed that this was brought to the notice of the
learned Single Judge, yet this has not been considered. From the perusal of the judgment, we do not see that any such contention relating to laches
was taken before the learned Single Judge. Â
 Moreover, as to what transpires in the Court and as to what contention was raised, is a matter on which the judgment speaks. It is the
complaint of the appellant before  this Court that the contention taken by him before the learned Single Judge has not been considered. In this
regard, the proper remedy would be to file a review / recall.Â
 In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere but we permit the appellant to file review / recall before the learned Single Judge in regard to
the plea of laches which the appellant has allegedly taken before the learned Single Judge.Â
The appeals are disposed of. Â
We also leave it open to the appellant, if advised, to challenge this judgment also.Â
Â