Unexplained delays in filing writ petitions can lead to dismissal, emphasizing the need for timely legal action in employment disputes.

ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

The present cases have been filed on identical issues and on identical facts, hence they are being taken up and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts shall be taken from WP No.20615/2018, unless otherwise mentioned.

2. The present petitions have been filed by employees who state to have been appointed as Teachers in Tribal Welfare department and the appointment order has been placed on record as Annex.P/2. In some of the cases as the appointment orders are not there, therefore, the petitioners have relied on service books filed along with the rejoinder.

3. It is common ground of all the petitioners that they were appointed in the year 1989 by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Shahdol as Assistant Teachers and posted in various schools being run by the said department in District Shahdol.

4. The petitioners have further contended that the initial appointment on the fixed salary was Rs.300/- p.m. and later on, they were even regularized in the service by certain orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare in the year 1990.

5. It is further contended that there were certain complaints in the matter of recruitment process carried out in the year 1989-90 when one Assistant Commissioner namely Shri S.S. Mishra was posted at district Shahdol and Shri Triveni Singh, Shri K.K. Singh and Shri R.B. Verma were posted as clerks in the said office. There were allegations that they issued a number of forged orders and appointed a number of Teachers, it was alleged that the dispatch numbers mentioned are not available in the original record maintained in the office of Assistant Commissioner and all the appointment orders are forged appointment orders. A trial was conducted against certain persons in the matter and ultimately the JMFC, Shahdol in RCT No.221/2010 has acquitted all the accused persons by judgment dated 10/01/2014 and therefore, now nothing remains in the matter and these petitioners ought to have been reinstated in service. It is contended that work was taken from them only upto the year 1992 and they have not been allowed to work thereafter and hence, they should be allowed to work and get salary and salary of entire intervening period should be paid to them as they have been validly appointed.

6. Per contra, counsel for the State has contended that there were large scale irregularities in the matter as evident from enquiry report Annex.R/1 filed along with the reply. He further submits that the petitioners claim to be appointed in the year 1989 and claim to have worked up to the year 1992 but no explanation for delay has been offered as the petition has been filed in the year 2018 which is with a delay of 26 years when most of the petitioners were approaching the age of retirement.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the petitioners claim to be appointed by various orders issued in the year 1989. An order Annex.P/8 is on record as per which instructions were issued to lodge FIR in the matter and a number of orders have been mentioned in the letter Annex.P/8 indicating that which of the appointment letters are forged. The appointment letters which the petitioners are relying upon have been mentioned in the said letter Annex.P/8 to be forged letter. The petitioners have only relied on the findings of the Criminal Court vide judgment Annex.P/17. It is contended by the petitioners that they were not the accused persons in the case and even otherwise there has been acquittal and therefore, they should be hel