Ishwar Dayal Jindal v. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd & Anr.
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
…Appellant …Respondents M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is di- rected against the order dated 29.5.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8545 of 2009, holding that the cause of action to the appellant arose in the year 1988 when persons junior to him were promoted as Junior Engi- neer-II/Senior Scale Stenographer. It is obvious that the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 after a delay of about 21 years. Even for filing the writ peti- tion, the reasonable period of three years has been regarded as period of limita- tion, on the analogy of filing of a civil suit. The aforementioned proposition has been laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in LPA No. 325 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the case of State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not deem it necessary to pass any order on the miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and other application for ex- emption. July 19, 2010 Pkapoor (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.