The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S v. Rabindra Nath Kumhar

Postal Service Board, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002)

Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002).

Campus, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002) The Director of Postal Services, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S. The Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, RN Division, GPO …… Petitioners Versus Balmiki Singh, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Ram Briksha Singh, Resident of Lower Chutia, Shiopuri Colony, P.O.- Krishnapuri, P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834002 …. Respondent With W.P.(S) No. 565 of 2025 The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S. The Union of India through its Secretary (Posts) & Chairman 1. Postal Service Board, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002) 3. Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002). 4. Campus, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (834002) The Director of Postal Services, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S. The Superintendent of Railway Mail Service, RN Division, GPO …… Petitioners -1 of 4- Versus Sanjay Kumar, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Basudeo Soti, Retired Sorting Assistant, Resident of Kokar, near Titli Basti, Sundar Bihar, P.O. RMCH, P.S. -Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834002 …. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner: For the Respondents: Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate --------- Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Pronounced on: 15 .07.2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. These three Writ petitions have been filed by the Union of India on

22.11.2024 challenging common judgment rendered on 13.09.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna O.A./051/00278/2021, O.A./051/00279/2021 and O.A./051/00280/2021.

2. In all the three Writ petitions there is no explanation offered for the delay of more than 2 years in filing the Writ petitions challenging the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The petitioners in the Writ petitions are the Union of India and their officers.

4. It appears that after the judgment was pronounced by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the above O.A.s on 13.09.2022 granting certain reliefs to the private respondents, the petitioners in the Writ petitions had filed Review Applications being RA/051/0002/2023, RA/051/0004/2023 and RA/051/0005/2023 and Review Applications were dismissed on 18.05.2023. -2 of 4-

More than one and half years later these Writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners without offering any explanation for the laches in filing the said Writ petitions.

Moreover, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the Review Applications were in fact filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking review of the judgment dt. 13.09.2022 of the said Tribunal only on 12.04.2023 after passage of 210 days without explaining the delay in filing the Review Applications as well.

Though there is no period of limitation provided for filing of a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is settled law that ordinarily a Writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time.

In this case, the petitioners cannot claim that they were disabled in any way from takings steps to file the Writ petition challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal rendered on 13.09.2022 till 22.11.2024. They have massive administrative machinery assisting them such as panel lawyers of substantial experience and the petitioners also cannot plead any dearth of financial resources.

Counsel for the petitioners has not denied that there was considerable delay in filing of the Review Applications by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Review Applications came to be dismissed on 18.05.2023.

Thereafter, admittedly the private respondents had filed Contempt Petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 13.09.2023 and notice was issued in the Contempt Petition on 15.12.2023 which was received by the petitioners. -3 of 4-

The petitioners then chose to wait till 22.11.2024 and leisurely filed the Writ petitions.

No explanation is offered by the petitioners as pointed out above for not challenging the order passed in the Central Administrative Tribunal for almost two years and for one and half years after Review Applications were dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for entertaining the Writ petitions in view of the laches on the part of the petitioners particularly when all the private respondents are retired persons even by the date of filing of the O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and it would be unjust on the part of the petitioners to harass them further by dragging them into more litigation.

We therefore, are not inclined to entertain the Writ petitions and the same are dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioners.

All pending applications shall stand closed. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) VK -4 of 4-