High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/2319/2020

Sh. Ram Kishor v. Union Of India And ANR.

2020-03-13Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal2 pages

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2319/2020 SH. RAM KISHOR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Prabhash and Mr.Pradeep, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Gigi C. George and Mr.Dheeraj Singh, Advocates for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R

% 13.03.2020 C.M. No. 8149/2020 (exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2319/2020 3.

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to respondents No. 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner's service with all consequential benefits and to pay compensation of Rs.50 lacs towards harassment for the last 20 years owing to the unlawful dismissal of the petitioner and ancillary reliefs. 4.

The counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance notice, has contended that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 5268/2019 claiming the same relief and which was dismissed vide order dated 15th May, 2019. It is contended that vide order dated 15th May, 2019, the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement stands negated and though vide said order dated 15th May, 2019, opportunity was given to the petitioner to seek W.P.(C) 2319/2020

compassionate allowance and any further dues from the respondents, but the petitioner, inspite of reminder, did not make any such claims and has instead filed this petition. A copy of the order dated 15th May, 2019 is handed over in the Court and is taken on record.

The counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated 15th May, 2019 was not in his knowledge. On being asked to inquire from the petitioner, though he has inquired from the petitioner present in person but states that the petitioner states that though he has knowledge of the order dated 15th May, 2019 but not full knowledge.

The counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to enable the petitioner to amend the petition.

The petitioner having suppressed the aforementioned material fact in the petition, the petition, in any case, is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. There is no place for such dishonest litigants in the Court. 8.

We refrain from imposing costs on the petitioner. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J MARCH 13, 2020 SU/ W.P.(C) 2319/2020