JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:- The petitioner was appointed a constable in the Delhi Armed Police in 1964. A large number of police constables participated in a mass agitation on April 14, 1967. The services of the agitating police constables were terminated on that account without specifying that reason for the termination. The petitioner claims that his service was similarly terminated on 3-8-1967 due to his participation in the agitation with other police constables. Apart from terminating their services, many of those police constables were also prosecuted. It appears that as a result of the demand by some Members of Parliament, many of the dismissed constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants and the Home Minister also directed withdrawal of prosecution against them. Some of the dismissed constables who were not taken back in service even as fresh entrants filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in 1969 and 1970 which were allowed by the High Court on October 1, 1975 quashing the orders of termination of those petitioners. Subsequent,ly, some other constables whose services were similarly terminated also filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in 1978 which too were allowed rejecting the objection raised on the ground of delay and laches. Another set of similarly dismissed constables then filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court challenging the termination of their services contending that their claim was identical with that of the petitioners in the writ petitions filed in 1978. These writ petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that the petitioners therein were entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners in the writ petitions filed in the High Court in 1978. The Delhi Administration preferred appeals in this Court against that decision. Those appeals were dismissed by the judgment in Lt. Governor of Delhi v. Dharampal, (1990) 4 SCC 13.

2. Petitioner, Bhoop Singh, claiming to be a similarly dismissed police constable filed O.A. No. 753 of 1989 in the Central Administrative Tribunal praying for reinstatement in service and all consequential benefits on the ground that his case and claim is similar to that of the police constables who had succeeded in the earlier rounds of litigation. The Tribunal has rejected the petitioners application on the ground that it is highly related and there is no cogent explanation for the inordinate delay of twenty-two years in filing the application on 13-3-1989 after termination of the petitioners service in 1967.

3. Shri Gobinda Mukhoty, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement like the others dismissed with him and then reinstated and the question of delay or laches does not arise. Learned counsel contended that the Delhi Administration was duty bound to reinstate the petitioner also with the others in not doing so, it has discriminated the petitioner. On this basis, it was urged, the question of laches or delay does not arise. Shri Mukhoty places strong reliance on the decision in Dharampal (AIR 1990 SC 2059) (supra) to support his submission.

4. Thereal questionis: whether, the mere fact that termination of petitioners service as a police constable in 1967 is alleged to be similar to that of the other police constables so dismissed in 1967 and then reinstated in the above manner is sufficient to grant him the relief of reinstatement ignoring the fact that he made the claim after the lapse of twentytwo years in 1989 ? It has, therefore, to be seen whether this fact alone is sufficient to classify the petitioner with the earlier reinstated police constables for granting the relief of reinstatement claimed in 1989 when those reinstated had made their claim several years earlier.

5. In Dharampal (AIR 1990 SC 2059) (supra) there is no consideration or discussion of this question and in that case this Court had refused to interfere with the relief grante