LAL CHANDRA v. CHAIRMAN HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2026-04-29. LAL CHANDRA v. CHAIRMAN HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY TH 29 APRIL, 2026 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2026 Lal Chandra …... Appellant. Versus Chairman, Human Rights Commission & others …. Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, learned counsel. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel through video conferencing. Counsel for Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Rajendra Arya, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J. ) 1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, dated 06. 04. 2026 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 948 of 2026, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 09. 05.
2017, whereby his representation against his disengagement from service in the year 2014, as an outsourced employee in Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission was rejected, has been dismissed. 2. The Writ Court has observed that the appellant was disengaged in the year 2014 and his representation was rejected in 2017, therefore, the writ petition filed in the year 2026 was inordinately delayed. Accordingly, it has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 3. It is not disputed before us that the appellant was disengaged in the year 2014. Even if any representation was filed, which ultimately was rejected in the year 2017, the cause of action, in fact, arose for seeking legal remedy in the year 2014 itself. Even if we calculate the limitation from 2017, when the representation also came to be rejected, the writ petition, as held by learned Single Judge, was inordinately delayed and has rightly been rejected as barred by delay and laches. 4.
The instant Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. th Dated: 29 April, 2026 NISHANT
Source: High Court of Uttarakhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.