BHOOP SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 29-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHOOP SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 29, 1992 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, J.S. VERMA AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950:-
Articles 14 and 311-Police agitation-Services of several police 
constables tenninated-Many constables filed writ petitions and were 
reinstated-Petitioner one such dismissed constable-Challenged his ter-
mination order after 22 years-No explanation offered for delay-Not 
entitled to relief merely because others have been reinstated-Refusal of 
relief-Held not discriminatory-Relief of reinstatement-To be granteq to 
one who is diligent. 
A large number of police constables participated in a mass agitation 
A 
B 
c 
D 
on April 14, 1967. The services of the agitating police constables were 
terminated on that account without specifying that reason for the termina-. 
tion. Apart from termination, many of these police constables were also 
prosecuted. As a result of the demand by some Members of Parliament, E 
many of the dismissed constables were taken back in service as tresh 
entrants and the Home Minister also directed withdrawal of the prosecu-
tion against them. 
Some of these dismissed constables who were not taken back in 
service even as fresh entrants filed writ petitions in the High Court in 1969 
and 1970 which were allowed by the High Court on October 1, 1975, 
quashing the orders of their termination. Subsequently, some other con-
stables whose services were similarly terminated also filed writ petitions 
in the High Court in 1978, which too were allowed, rejecting the objection 
raised on the ground of delay and laches. 
F 
G 
Another set of similarly dismissed constables then filed writ peti-
tio~s in the High Court challenging the termination of their services 
contending that their claim was identical with that·oftbe petitioners in the 
writ petitions filed in 1978. These petitions were.trJtnsferred to the Central 
Administrative Tribunal which held that they were entitled to the same H 
969 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992]. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
relief as was granted in the writ petitions filed in the High Court in 1978. 
B 
Appeals to this Court by the Delhi Administration against this decision 
~ 
were dismissed. 
Lt. Governor of Delhi and others v. Dharampal and others, (1990] 4 
sec 13. 
The petitioner in the Special Leave Petition claimed to be a 
similarly dismissed police constable and filed a petition . before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal for re-instatement in service and con-
sequential benefits on the ground that his case and claim was similar 
C to that of the police constables who had succeeded in the earlier rounds 
of litigation. 
The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that it was 
highly belated and there was no cogent explanation for the inordinate delay 
..(, 
of 22 years in filing the application on 13th March, 1989 after termination 
D of the service in 1967. 
E 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended that the petitioner was 
~ntitled to the relief of reinstatement like the others dismissed with him 
and then reinstated and the question of delay or laches does not arise, and 
that the Delhi Administration was dutybound to reinstate him along with 
others and in not doing so, it has discriminated him. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court, 
HELD : 1. It is expected of a Government servant who has a 
F 
legitimate claim to approach the Court for the relief he seeks within a 
reasonable period, assuming no fixed period of limitation applies. This is 
necessary to avoid dislocating the administrative set-up after it has been 
functioning on a certain basis for years. During the interregnum those who 
have been working gain more experience and acquire rights which cannot 
be defeated casually by lateral entry of a person at a higher point without 
G the benefit of actual experience during the period of his absence when he 
chose to remain silent for years before making the claim. Apart from the 
consequential benefits of reinstatement without. actually working, the im-
pact on the administrative set-up and on other employees is a strong 
reason to decline consideration of a stale claim unless the delay is satis-
H factorily explained and is not attributable to the claimant. This is a 
BHOOP SINGH v. U.0.1. 
971 
....... 
material fact to be given due weight while considering the argument of A 
discrimination for deciding whether the petitioner is in the same class as 
those who challenged their dismissal several ye

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.