DHIRUBHA JASHUBHA VALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA Date of decision: 11/01/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)The petitioner, who was working as P.S.I. has challenged in this petition the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 16.4.1988 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saurashtra North Division, Rajkot-respondent No.2, compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from 1.5.1988 on completing 55 years age on 9.3.1988. The challenge was made after the period of one year by way of this petition. That gross delay of one year remained totally unexplained. (cid:9)However, learned counsel Shri Popat for the petitioner tried to explain the delay of one year by submitting that impugned order passed on 16.4.1988 and the order of provisional pension at Annexure-C was passed on 11.7.1988. He further submitted that without finance, the petitioner was not in a position to file the petition, therefore, delay has occurred.

He submitted that when this court has admitted the petition and when this petition is pending before this court since last 12 years, then it would not be proper to dismiss this petition only on the ground of delay. However, it was vehemently submitted by Mr.Pujara that mere pendency of this petition for 12 years itself would not be a ground for entertaining the petition on merits when the petitioner failed to explain the delay of one year. He submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that he was having financial difficulty, then also, after the order of provisional pension passed in July, 1988, he should not have waited for at least nine more months in filing the petition. The delay of nine months is fatal. He submitted that the petitioner was fully convinced with the compulsorily retiring order on completing 55 years in the year 1988 and, therefore, he accepted even the order of provisional pension passed in July, 1988, but later on he decided to challenge the impugned order of compulsory retirement which does not cast any stigma.

(cid:9)Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am fully convinced that in the instant case the petitioner has come late before this court. There is a delay of about one year in challenging the impugned order of compulsory retirement. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner was having financial difficulty because he was made to retire as P.S.I. Even assuming for the sake of argument that he had some financial difficulty then also after passing the order of provisional pension at Annexure-C in July, 1988, he should have approached the court immediately. There is lot of substance in the second submission made by Mr.Pujari that the petitioner had already accepted the order of compulsory retirement and also accepted the order of provisional pension, therefore, after a period of one year he should not be allowed to challenge the impugned order of compulsory retirement. (cid:9)In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches without going into the merits of the case.