Uma Shankar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Shri S.K. Thomas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. " ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 4th day of May,2009) By this petition, the petitioner, who is a retired Principal, seeks the following reliefs: "10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a suitable order in favour of the that he be given the higher petitioner scale ofpay Rs.10,000-325-15,200/-.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court further direct the respondents necessary action of the petitioner's case and he be given all benefits as per the circular dated 19-4-1999. immediately

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased writ/order/direction being deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dispose of the writ petition at the respondent motion stage and direct authorities immediately to pay all benefits of kramonnati.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, according to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the costofthe petition." <-\ 2) Shri Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that initially the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by order dated 3-1-1966 (Annexure - P/1) and after completion of 18 years of service the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal by order dated 27-6-1984 (Annexure - P/2). The petitioner superannuated from the service on 30-9-2001. The petitioner worked on the post of Principal for 17 years without any promotion. According to the time bound promotion scheme, if any employee has completed more than 24 years of service and gets only one promotion in the entire service period, then the employee is entitled to get the benefit of next higher pay scale. Learned counsel would further submit that by referring the provisions of submitted scheme promotion petitioner representations before the respondent authorities, but till date no action has been taken. Learned counsel would next submit that the aforesaid benefit has been granted to the persons who are similarly situated to the to the petitioner. Learned counsel prays for grant of similar petitioner also. relief 3) The petitioner has not offered any explanation for inordinate delay of 8 years from the date of his superannuation and 10 years from the date of time bound promotion scheme in filing the present petition. The time bound promotion scheme was introduced by the Government in the year 1999. The petitioner superannuated from service in the year 2001. law that more than one representation It is well settled principle of cannot arrest the limitation as even if representation is not considered and order is not passed within a reasonable period of six months, petitioner ought to have approached the High Court for redressat of his grievance. The petitioner has not done the needful and waited for about 10 years to come to this court at this belated stage. Thus, this petition cannot be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay and laches. 4) The law on the principle of waiver and acquiescence is well settled that, if the person sleeps over his rights and is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, he may not be entitled to the same relief as was granted to other vigilant persons. 5) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhushan and another vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh (Regional) Lucknow and Others , observed that "normally the question whether a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the /ssue of a writ of certiorah had been presented without undue delay or laches is a question for the High Court to decide and this Court would notinterfere with the exercise ofthe discretion ofthe High Court" 6) Further, other Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court Rabindranath Bose and Others vs. The Union of India and Others , observed as under: "31. But fifteen years after in so far as the attack is based on the 1952 Seniority Rules, The fail on another ground. ground being that this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been brought about 1952 Rules were promulgated and effect given to them in the Seniority List Learned prepared on August 1, 1953. counsel for the petitioners says that this Court has no discretion and cannot dismiss the petition under Article 32 on the ground that it has been brought after inordinate delay. We are unable to accept this contention..... carefully considering counsel learned strongly The 32. petitioners decision of this Court in M/s. Tilokchand Motichand's case (supra) needs review. But matter, we are of the view that no relief should be given to petitioners who, reasonable explanation, without any approach this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution after inordinate delay. The highest Court in this land has been jurisdiction to entertain given original 32 petitions It could not have been the Constitution. intention that this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of years. It itself a guaranteed right. So it is, but it does not follow from this that it was the intention the Constitution makers that Court should discard all principles and inordinate delay." said that Article 32 under Article petitions relief 7) Later, a Constitution Bench the Supreme Court Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. The State of 1 AIR 1967 SC 1272 21970(1)SCC84 iarashtra and others (Bhagwati, J. in para 10) observed as under: "10...... It may also be noted that principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on ground of laches and delay is that the r.ights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. This principle was stated in the following terms by Hidayatullah, C.J. Tilok Chand vs. H.B. Munshi (supra): "The party claiming Fundamental Rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence. The action of courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court." 8) In State of IW.P. vs. Nandlat , it was observed that that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactory explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in if writ exercise of It was also observed that its writ jurisdiction. jyrisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay third parties. When writ coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding important whether or not to exercise such Jurisdiction. 9) The Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jashwant Singh and another , observed as under: "The question of delay and laches has beenexamined by this Court in a series laches has been of decisions considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution." 3 (1974)1 SCC317 4 (AIR 1987 SC 251) 5(2006)11SCC464 '*^J*^T On laches and delay in agitating the grievances before the Court, in State of Punjab and another vs. the Hon'ble Supreme Court Balkaran Singh6 observed as under: the suit "22. According to us, is also barred by acquiescence and estoppel. No one in a service can sleep over the question of seniority for more than 12 years and then come to couri: seeking a relief which will upset the seniority of a number of persons who had been shown as seniors in the respective seniority lists. Therefore, on the face of it, a declaratory relief that will have the effect of altering a twelve-year-old and a nine-year-old seniority list could not have been granted by the courts below." In Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of 11) Maharashfra , the Supreme Court observed as under: exercise "Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when discretionary powers. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party." 12) The Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others where the appellants took 559 days in approaching the Court, causing unexplained and inordinate delay, observed as under: "We uphold unable It is no doubt true that there contention. can be no waiver of fundamental right. discretionary But while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 this Couri: the Constitution, or 136 of takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant approaching a writ court. is well settled that power discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. the petitioner wants to invoke 57. jurisdiction of a writ court, he should to issue a writ If It 6 7 8