Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a reinstatement claim brought twelve years after termination and based on parity with a different employee. The earlier employee’s retention arose from personal equitable circumstances after seventeen years of service, not a finding that termination was unlawful. The termination order contained reasons, and the unexplained delay defeated discretionary writ relief. The Court also dismissed the consequential contempt proceedings.
Issues
- Whether personal equitable relief to another employee justified reinstatement on parity despite different service history and prolonged delay.
Held
- The premise that termination lacked reasons contradicted the Supreme Court’s earlier determination that cancellation of the selection was expressly stated as the reason. The High Court could not repeat the rejected premise. (¶ 11)
- The comparator’s claim lacked legal merit; consideration of retention was directed only because he had continued serving for seventeen years during litigation. The respondent had been out of service since 1978 and could not demand extension of that personal equitable relief. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- No strict statutory limitation governs writ jurisdiction, but unreasonable unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence are material. The respondent’s representation and notice did not explain waiting until 1990 to challenge the 1978 termination. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Judgments intended to benefit all similarly placed persons may oblige authorities to extend relief without separate litigation. That exception did not apply to the comparator’s individual equitable order, and no incapacity explaining the respondent’s delay was established. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; Single Judge and Division Bench orders set aside and the respondent’s writ petition dismissed. The challenged interim contempt order quashed and contempt petition dismissed. No order as to costs.