Vishnu Kumar Thakur v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1997 of 2016 ===========================================================
1. Vishnu Kumar Thakur S/o Late Civilian Barber Gopal Thakur, No. 4476(N 2 Training Battalin, M.T.S.C., A.S.C. Centre (North), Paharpur Gaya, Bihar ( Since shifted to Bangalore, Karnataka), R/o Barki Delha (C/o Prakash Thakur) in front of Ganauri Sao Oil Mill, P.S. - Delha, District - Gaya, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Defence Secretary, Govt. of India, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chief of Army Staff, Indian Army, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Director General of Supplies and Transport (Quartermaster General Branch), Integrated HQ of MOD (Army), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The General Officer Commanding- in- Chief, Southern Command, Indian Army, Pune, Maharashtra.
5. The Commandant, Army Service Corps (A.S.C. Centre North), Bangalore, Karnataka.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brijeshwar Narayan Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay (Addl. Soc. Gen.) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-11-2017 Heard Mr. Brijeshwar Narayan Singh learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2014 of the Deputy Director General of the Supplies and Transport whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected in reference to the earlier rejection dated 23.08.2001. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this earlier rejection was not known and that is the cause for delay. In my opinion even if the petitioner was not aware of the earlier rejection, considering that he attained majority
Patna High Court CWJC No.1997 of 2016 dt.02-11-2017 2/2 some time in the year 2000 and yet has chosen to raise the issue before the respondents after more than a decade vide application dated 25.09.2012 which has been rejected by the order impugned, neither on merits nor on delay and laches the claim is worthy of indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.11.2017 Transmission Date NA