The Secretary, Higher Education and Literacy Department, Govt v. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 3666 of 2017 ---------- Mantorni Devi ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Higher Education and Literacy Department, Govt. Versus of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Higher Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi. 5. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi. 6. The Principal, Kartik Oraon College, Gumla. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Shoumikya, Advocate : Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ---------- 2. At the very outset, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi University that entire amount has already been paid to the petitioner and now, nothings remains to be adjudicated. 3. Husband of the Petitioner claimed to have been promoted to the post of Electrician but revised pension pursuant to his promotion from the post of Peon to Electrician has not been paid to him. However, not a single chit of paper has been brought on record to show as to when petitioner’s husband was being promoted from the post of Peon to Electrician and from which date he was entitled for the benefits of enhanced pay-scale. However, from perusal of Annexures-2 and 3 of the writ petition it appears that petitioner’s husband was paid salary of the electrician by College concerned. Thereafter, on retirement in the year 2009, the petitioner’s pension was fixed as per the pay-scale for which he is entitled for i.e. Rs.755-1025/-. 4. The pensionary benefits along with other emoluments was accepted by the petitioner and it was only after 8 years i.e. in the year 2017, a writ 2 petition was filed that petitioner is entitled for pensionery benefits at the enhanced rate and wrongly, the pension of her husband was fixed for the post of peon though he was working on the post of Electrician. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, husband of the present petitioner, who was the original petitioner in the instant writ petition died and thereafter, the present petitioner was substituted in his place. 6. Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no document has been produced as the same was not provided to him but it appears from Annexures-2 and 3 of the writ petition that husband of petitioner was getting pay-scale of Electrician and as such, the present petitioner is entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits as per the pay- scale admissible to the post of Electrician and not of the Peon. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent-University submits that in spite of repeated requests by the respondent-University the College has not supplied any document which could suggest that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrician and if promoted, by which order the pay-scale of the petitioner was enhanced to the post of Electrician. Learned counsel submits that for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-III, is done by the Board, Senate or Syndicate. The petitioner has not brought on record any document or order by which the petitioner was promoted to Grade-III post and as such, he is not entitled for the benefits accrued to him by way of promotion to Grade-III post. 8. From the documents brought on record and from perusal of the specific averments made in the writ petition, it appears that petitioner was appointed as Peon and throughout his service career he worked as Peon and after his retirement he was getting pensionary benefits which he accepted for 8 long years without any demur or protest and thereafter, taking shelter of Annexures-2 and 3, this writ petition has been filed for getting the pensionary benefits at a enhanced pay-scale of Electrician. After getting the pensionary benefits for 8 years, the petitioner awakened from the deep slumber and has knocked the door of this Court claiming pensionary 3 benefits on the pay-scale of Electrician. The conduct of the petitioner is not praiseworthy and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the point of delay itself. 9. 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: it that in mind “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 court should bear is exercising an 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 the respondent- approach gains more significance as employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained forgotten 4 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.” 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal proposition and judicial pronouncement, no other view can be taken as to
Decision
what has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)