Mohammad Hasib Kha v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2414 of 2023 Mohammad Hasib Kha ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. 4. The Deputy General Manager (Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. 5. Electrical Executive Engineer, MRT Division No. 1, Ranchi, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. 6. The General Manager, HRD, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner For the JUVNL For the State ----------- : : :
Legal Reasoning
amount with taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in case of Ishwari Prasad Mandal Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board [W.P.(S). No. 6166 of 2008], affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. From perusal of the records it appears that since the date of reduction of pay-scale in the year 2003, petitioner is accepting the said amount and continued in service and superannuation, received the pensionary benefits and it is only on 27.04.2023, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order of reduction of pay-scale as mentioned above. 2 4. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
Arguments
Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to SC-VII 04/ 03.10.2023 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing/ setting aside the pay-fixation chart of the petitioner prepared on 21.05.2003 (Annexure-3), and thereafter, direction upon the respondents to grant pay- protection and re-fix pay, pension and gratuity and to pay the differential
Decision
the matter on the sole ground that the writ petition has been filed after lapse of 20 years from the date of passing the impugned order. The petitioner has accepted the reduced pay-scale and continued to discharge his duties without any demur or protest and thereafter retired from service. After retirement also, he received the pensionary benefits for certain period and thereafter has knocked the door of this Court. 5. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not protect the interest of a person who sleeps over their right. Admittedly, after a gross delay of about 20 years, the petitioner woke-up from deep slumber and filed the present writ petition challenging the reduction of his pay-scale, that too when he had accepted the said pay-scale and continued to discharge his duties and even after retirement also, he was enjoying the pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by him. Now, after 20 years from the date of reduction of pay, i.e. on 27.04.2023, he has filed the present writ petition, which is barred by limitation and as such, no interference is required on the same. 6. This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1979, in which, while dismissing the writ petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “for the first time in September, 1970 the appellant invoked the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging the legality of an order dated 21.12.1966. The writ petition was filed after a gross delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing it summarily” Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, has held as under: “Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The is exercising an court should bear in mind that it 3 forgotten extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains the respondent-employee being more significance as absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 7. The reliance of the petitioner in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 is of no help to him. The further reliance of the learned counsel in the case of M.L. Patil (dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Goa & Anr., reported in (2023) 1 SCC 660 is also not applicable since in the said issue, delayed 4 payment of pension was involved whereas in the case in hand, reduction of pay-scale is under challenge. 8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal proposition and judicial pronouncement, no other view can be taken as to what has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. RC/K/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)