The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20724 of 2024 Gyanendranath Behera ….. Petitioner Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Advocate -versus- 1. Union of India 2. The General Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Bhubaneswar 3. The Chief Personnel Officer, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Bhubaneswar 4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, E.Co. Railway, Khurda 5. The Sr. Asst. Engineer, E.Co. Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar 6. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), E.Co. Railway, Khurda 7. The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co- ordination), E.Co. Railway, Khurda 8. The Senior Section Engineer (Works), E.Co. Railway, Bhubaneswar Page 1 of 8 9.The Registrar, CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack ..... Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, Central Govt. Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 12.11.2024 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioner, Gyanendranath Behera, who is working as Tech.-III under Sr. Section Engineer (Works), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.260/00635 of 2016 in dismissing the original application both on the ground of limitation so also on merit. The petitioner case before the learned Tribunal was that he belonged to S.C. community and was appointed as Khalasi on 19.01.1996 and the respondents- department conducted Limited Departmental Competition Examination (LDCE) in the year 2004 for filling up of the vacancies of Skilled Artisan Gr.III against 25% quota and Page 2 of 8 in the year 2005, trade test was conducted for the post of Masson-III, ECP-III and EBS-III but he was not given any opportunity to appear at the test and by efflux of time, he was granted one financial upgradation but despite existence of several vacancies in Skilled Artisan Gr.III under reserved category, he was not allowed any promotion. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had submitted representation on 19.01.2016 and since he did not get any fruitful result, he approached the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.211 of 2016 which was disposed of on 12.04.2016 with a direction to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, Jatni, Khurda to consider and dispose of the representation. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent did not apply his mind properly in rejecting his application on 29.06.2016 for which he approached the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid original application. His prayer in the O.A. was to quash the order dated 29.06.2016 for a further direction to the respondent to consider his case for promotion to consider his case for promotion to Skilled Artisan Gr.II and grant him all consequential service and financial benefits retrospectively. The respondents entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the applicant appeared at the LDCE of 2004 but failed to qualify and as per the avenue/channel of promotion, a person holding Page 3 of 8 the post of Head Clerk is to be promoted to the post of Tech.III (All Trades) opted for as per seniority subject to passing out requisite Trade Test. Trade Test for Tech.III was conducted in 2005 and the applicant opted for the post Tech.III ECR but due to surrender of post under work study, the Trade Test for the post was not conducted and therefore, his junior Narayan Sarangi, who opted for Tech.III EBS being found suitable in the test was promoted. As per the rules, the vacancies of Tech.III (All Trades) are being filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability through Trade Test and accordingly, it was stated in the counter affidavit that the claim of the petitioner is not justified. It is the further case of the petitioners in the counter affidavit that a person was called in the year 2006 for one post of Tech.III (Fitter) and in 2007 for one post of Tech.III (FOM) and in the year 2012 for one post of Tech.III (Fitter) and the petitioner opted for the post of Tech.III (FOM and Fitter) but as per the seniority position, the petitioner’s name could not be included in the list to appear at the said Trade Test and accordingly, after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, the Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the petitioner failed in the LDCE in 2004 and in 2006, Trade Test was not conducted due to surrender of vacancy and in 2012, he could not be empanelled to appear at the Test due to his seniority position and he made the representation Page 4 of 8 only 19.01.2016, the O.A. is hit by the law of limitation and no M.A. has been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay and the prayer of the petitioner is also found to be vague as his prayer for retrospective promotion from which date is conspicuously absent possibly because of intention to overcome limitation and section 21 of the A.T. Act is very clear in so far as counting of limitation is concerned. In the case of Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh -Vrs.- Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. reported in (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that Article 226 of the Constitution is not a blanket power, regardless of temporal and discretionary restraints and if a party is inexplicably insouciant and unduly belated due to laches, the Court may ordinarily deny the redress. The legal world is well-versed to a principle that every litigant must be conscious, active and vigilant for enforcement of his rights. The law protects the vigilant litigants and not the ones who sleep over their rights, the essence of which is reflected in the Latin maxim ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt’. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board -Vrs.- T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the effect of laches in litigation and held as follows: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches Page 5 of 8 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 in mind that it 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 scrutinise 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 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. fatal but forgotten 17. 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 scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext Page 6 of 8 that repetition remaining of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of 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 realm of litigation which 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.” in acceptable After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and the averments taken in the writ petition, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal. The High Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not stripped of the discretion to condone delays even for laches, however, such discretion is guided by constitutional as well as legal principles. It is the norm that every organ of the State must strive for bringing about an end to litigations and such principle is reverberated in the maxim “interest republicae ut sit finis litium”. No doubt such doctrine does not warrant unjustified end to any litigation which Page 7 of 8 might affect the rights of parties but if cause of action is stated to have been arisen in the year 2004 and the petitioner remained silent and for the first time, he made a representation in the year 2016 and thereafter approached the Tribunal, he should have explained the delay in a better manner which he has not done and therefore, the learned Tribunal is quite justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Issue certified copy as per Rules. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) sipun (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Nov-2024 17:08:15 Page 8 of 8