The court emphasized that unreasonable delay and acquiescence can bar reinstatement claims in service matters, reinforcing the need for timely action to maintain administrative stability.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioner seeks reinstatement as Peon in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala against the post reserved for Physically Challenged persons.

2. From the pleaded case and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, following facts emerge:-

2(i). Petitioner was appointed as Peon in the office of respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala vide office order dated 11.11.2008 on contract basis for a period of one year on terms & conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. Petitioner continued to discharge his duties on contract basis in the subsequent years as well.

2(ii). Petitioner was transferred to the office of Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) Jaisinghpur, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra on 31.05.2013. He joined there on 01.06.2013. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was finding it difficult to discharge the duties assigned to him at Sub-Divisional Office Jaisinghpur in view of his visual impairment. Petitioner was accordingly transferred to the office of respondent No.3 against a vacant post on 15.10.2013.

2(iii). On 04.07.2014 (Annexure P-10), petitioner resigned from the post citing his visual impairment and his difficulty in rendering service on that count. It appears that prior to his resignation, petitioner had instituted CWP No.431 of 2012, seeking regularization of his services. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 05.09.2014 alongwith several other connected matters on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners in the bunch matters that the case of the petitioners for regularization is covered by a judgment and accordingly, the petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner had already resigned at the time of disposal of his writ petition.

2(iv). On 29.03.2016, petitioner represented to respondent No.3 to re-engage him as Peon. The representation was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-13). While rejecting the representation, respondent No.3 observed that: The petitioner had voluntarily submitted his resignation on 04.07.2014 stating that he was not in a position to work due to his visual impairment; Even thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity vide office letter dated 19.08.2014 for his appearance before respondent No.3 on 23.08.2014 and to present his case, but the petitioner did not avail the opportunity; It is two years thereafter that he has moved this representation; Petitioner’s contract had elapsed as he had voluntarily resigned, therefore, his services stood automatically terminated.

2(v). More than 08 years thereafter, i.e. on 12.12.2024, petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents seeking reinstatement. Getting no response from the respondents, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the case file, I am not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner of his own volition had resigned from the post on 04.07.2014. He has not even disputed the fact that pursuant to his aforesaid resignation, respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala had given him a further opportunity under office letter dated 19.08.2014 to present his case before the authority on 23.08.2014. Petitioner failed to appear before the authority on the said date. He did not make any representation for more than two years. It was on 29.03.2016 that he represented to respondent No.3 for his reinstatement. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.3 justly rejected the representation of the petitioner on 29.06.2016. Even this rejection was accepted by the petitioner. He did not take any steps for assailing the same at that stage. He has instituted this writ petition almost 09 years after the rejection of his representation an