The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, v. V. Babaiah, E.409982, Driver,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1038 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 02-02-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 2013 of 2006, whereby the said petition, filed by the respondent, was partly allowed. In the writ petition, the respondent had challenged the order dated 18-11-1997 issued by the appellant whereby the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect on the future increments was imposed. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge modified the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and made it clear that the respondent would not be entitled for any monetary benefits up to the date of the order i.e., 02-02-2006.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge did not take into consideration the delay in filing the writ petition. He submitted that there was a delay of six years in filing the writ petition and on this ground alone, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

We have perused the order as well as the grounds of appeal. Though in the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the learned Judge, while dealing with the writ petition, ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, did not raise such contention before the learned Judge. There is absolutely nothing in the impugned order, on the basis of which the appellant could claim that such contention was raised and it was not considered. The impugned order cannot be faulted in view of the fact

that the learned Judge did not have an occasion to consider the ground of delay and laches. That apart, the appellant even did not file counter in the writ petition raising such objection for entertaining the writ petition.

Having regard thereto, we are not inclined to entertain such contention for the first time in the writ appeal. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed. We may also observe that the learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any other contention. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.

______________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, J _______________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 21-01-2015 ks