Those appeals were dismissed by the judgment in Lt.
petitioner, Bhoop Singh, claiming to be a similarly dismissed police companystable filed O.A. No.
Shri Gobinda Mukhoty, learned companynsel 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 number arise.
Governor of Delhi and Dharampal and others, 1990 4 SCC 13.
The Delhi Administration preferred appeals in this Court against that decision.
From the Order and Judgment dated 30.9.1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in R.A. No.
Apart from terminating their services, many of those police companystables were also prosecuted.
Subsequently, some other companystables 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 companystables then filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court challenging the termination of their services companytending 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.
753 of 1989.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave petition No.
Some of the dismissed companystables who were number taken back in service even as fresh entrant field 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 petitioner.
It appears that as a result of the demand by some Members of Parliament, many of the dismissed companystables were taken back in service as fresh entrants and the Home Minister also directed withdrawal of prosecution against them.
A large number of police companystables participated in a mass agitation on April 14, 1967.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. The petitioner was appointed a companystable in the Delhi Armed Police in 1964.
1485 of 1992.
The services of the agitating police companystables were terminated on that account without specifying that reason for the termination.
162 of 1991 in O.A. No.
Govind Mukhoty, A.P. Singh and K.N. Rai for the Petitioner.
The petitioner claims that his service was similarly terminated on 3.8.1967 due to his participation in the agitation with other police companystables.
