24 and 25 of 1976.
270 and 937 of 1978.
383 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
These writ peti tions were heard by Anand, J. who rejected the companytention raised by the respondents in the writ petitions regarding the delay and latches in moving the writ petitions, allowed the writ petitions quashing the impugned order of termina tion declaring that the petitioners will be deemed to have been in service and would be treated as such subject to certain companyditions.26/69 and 106/70 in the High Court of Delhi and the High Court by its judgment dated October 1, 1975 quashed the order of termination and the petitioners in that case were declared to be throughout in service.
Subsequently, some other companystables whose services were similarly terminated but were number reinstated in service even as fresh entrants, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi being CWP Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
J. These appeals arose out of the judgment and order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Central Adminis trative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi directing that the petitioners respondents in these appeals will be entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in the writ petitions CWP Nos.
Some of the dismissed companystables filed Civil Writ Petition Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY.
In view of the public companytroversy and in deference to the views expressed in Parliament, a large number of agitating companystables were taken back in service as fresh entrants.
Delhi in T. Nos.
Both these appeals were dismissed as barred by time and the judgment of the High Court dated October 1, 1975 became final.
950, 961, 972, 986, 1049, 1198 of 1985 and T. No.
33763382 of 1988.
Later, in view of the assurance given in the Parliament by the then Home Minister, prosecu tions were withdrawn and the dismissed companystables were reinducted into service.
Juse P. Verghese, K.N. Rai and N.N Sharma for the Re spondents.
The matrix of the case, in short, is that the services of the respondents who were appointed as companystables in Delhi Police in the years 1964 66 were terminated because of their participation in the agitation along with other police companystables in April 1967.
278 of 1978 and 937 of 1978.
B. Barua, Aruneshwar Gupta and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
The Police Administration preferred separate ap peals being LPA Nos.
