https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314191 The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application for reinstatement as a police constable, citing an unexplained delay of twenty-two years since his termination in 1967. Despite the petitioner's claim of discrimination and similarity to other reinstated constables, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of timely claims in service matters to uphold administrative stability and fairness. The Court found the delay unjustifiable and concluded that granting relief under Article 136 would be inequitable, thereby refusing the petitioner's request for reinstatement. No separate judgment was issued by the judges. en-us Wed, 29 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2026 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314191 The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application for reinstatement as a police constable, citing an unexplained delay of twenty-two years since his termination in 1967. Despite the petitioner's claim of discrimination and similarity to other reinstated constables, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of timely claims in service matters to uphold administrative stability and fairness. The Court found the delay unjustifiable and concluded that granting relief under Article 136 would be inequitable, thereby refusing the petitioner's request for reinstatement. No separate judgment was issued by the judges. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314191