Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
Madan Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
UOI & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 426 of 2008
Decided On : 18-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. H.P. Chakravorti, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Madhulika Agarwal, Advocate along with Mr. J.K Singh, Standing Counsel for Railways
Dismissal for non-prosecution due to gross negligence and lack of seriousness in pursuing the case.
Headnote:
Service - Seniority Dispute - Casual Labourers - Northern Railway - Central Administrative Tribunal - Non-prosecution - Dismissal for non-prosecution
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, casual laborers at Northern Railway, raised a seniority dispute against private respondents. The case remained pending for nine years due to the petitioners' failure to serve the respondents and their counsel's negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners grossly negligent in attending court proceedings and prosecuting the petition effectively, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution.
Issues: Negligence of the petitioners in prosecuting the petition, failure to serve the respondents, and the necessity of private respondents' presence in a seniority dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' gross negligence and lack of seriousness in pursuing the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
1. The present petition has remained pending for the past nine years only for effecting service on the respondents, numbering 50. Out of the 50 respondents, respondent Nos. 5 to 50 are private respondents.
2. The petitioners, who were initially engaged as casual labourers in the Signal & Telecom Department of Construction/Division in Northern Railway, Delhi, on different dates from the year 1970 onwards, had raised an issue pertaining to their seniority, vis-a-vis the private respondents no. 5-50 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said petition was however dismissed by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 03.11.2006.
3. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners had filed the present petition, on which notice to show cause was issued on 18.01.2008. On the said date, appearance was entered on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-4/Northern Railways and notice was issued to the remaining private respondents.
4. Thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the petitioners to serve the respondents but learned counsel failed to file the process fee. During the pendency of the present petition, petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 7 expired. Similarly, some private respondents have also expired. Later on, the petitioners had sought deletion of four of the private respondents. However, no steps were taken by the counsel for the petitioners to serve the remaining respondents.
5. On 08.01.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that counsel for respondent Nos. 1-4 had not furnished him the correct addresses of some of the respondents. However, it was noticed that the petitioners had not taken steps for effecting service at least on such of the respondents whose correct addresses were duly provided to the learned counsel for the petitioners on 22.11.2012.
6. On 12.03.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that he may be able to verify the fresh addresses of some of the respondents and had sought time to file the process fee. On 06.05.2013, respondent Nos. 31,33,34,36,37, 42 and 43 had appeared in person and stated that they did not wish to file a counter affidavit in response to the petition. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he intended to move an application for effecting substituted service on the remaining unserved respondents. However, no such application came to be filed till 19.12.2013.
7. On 19.12.2013, notice was issued on an application filed by the petitioner for effecting substituted service on the unserved respondents. Though, citations for publication of notice were duly issued, the petitioners failed to take any steps for effecting publication, as directed.
8. A perusal of the order sheets shows that after 28.07.2014, learned counsel for the petitioners had stopped appearing in the case. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.12.2014. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for seeking restoration of the writ petition that was listed in court on 23.02.2015, but the said application also came to be dismissed as none had appeared for the petitioners.
9. In March 2015, the petitioners filed another application for seeking restoration of the application for restoration of the writ petition, on which, notice was issued on 24.03.2015. The said application was allowed on 14.07.2015 and on 18.08.2015, the restoration application filed by the petitioners was allowed and the writ petition was restored to its original position. Thereafter, the petitioners were directed to take steps to serve the unserved respondents. However, learned counsel did not take any steps to file the process fee for effecting service on them. Further, no steps have been taken to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as long back as July 2009.
10. From 18.11.2015 till 02.05.2017, several opportunities were granted to the counsel for the petitioners to take steps to serve the unserved respondents. On 18.08.2017, le
