Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Se napati, learned counsel representing the ONGC. The challenge in this writ petition is the Annexure-F order dated 03.09. 1992, by which the services of the petitioner as helper Grade-II, who remained u nauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f. 17.01.1990 to 10.05.1990 was dispensed wit h as per the provision of Regulation 14(5) of ONGC Leave Regulation, 1968. The writ petition was filed on 16.09.2004 i.e. more than twelve years after the impugned order was passed. There is no proper explanation as to the cause of del ay of twelve years in filing the writ petition. Only explanation furnished is in paragraph 10 in which it has been stated that after the impugned order dated 03 .09.1992, the petitioner had submitted some representations which are available in Annexure-G series. The two representations annexed to the writ petition are d ated 13.08.1990 and 25.10.20012. Even if the said representations are taken into account then also there was delay in agitating the grievances. Moreover there i s nothing to show that the said two representations had been filed and acknowled ged by the respondents. In fact in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the existence and or submissions of the said two representations by the petitioner has been denied. A s has been held by the Apex Court in Ratan Chandra Sammanta & others petitioners Vs Union of India and others respondents reported in AIR 1993 SC 2276, delay it self deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In view of the above, there is no question of interference with the impu gned order. However, if the petitioner is entitled to any arrear amount pertain ing to CPF the respondents may release the same facilitating which the petitione r may approach the ONGC Authority by submitting proper application.