Sachchidanand Tripathi v. State Of U.P. And
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The impugned order dated 13.03.2018 declines the claim made by the petitioner with other various employees who were appointed as Chemist Grade-I.
3. The impugned order while invalidating the claim of the petitioner for parity with the aforesaid said category of employees records that the said category of employees were appointed as Grade-I Chemist after an open selection procedure. Though in the year 1978 due to non availability of eligible candidates departmental applications were invited from Grade-II Chemist for participating in the departmental examination for appointment as Grade-I Chemist. The petitioner did not participate in the aforesaid selection and cannot be equated with the said category of employees (Grade-I Chemists).The claim of the parity with other employees is untenable. The grand of ACP benefits to the aforesaid category of employees is governed by Order No. 2577- मम0 सस0 प 0-02/ उननिलल/2008 नदिनिमसक:27.10.2008. The petitioner does not satisfy the prerequisite of the aforesaid order to avail such benefits. As per the said order dated 27.10.2008, ACP benefits are available to those employees who were appointed by direct recruitment/appointment from the lower class to a higher category of post. No perversity in the impugned order has been shown. The order does not merit any interference.
4. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly the petitioner superannuated in the year 2007. He made a representation for grant of various service benefits claiming parity with other employees in the year 2017. True it is, that a writ petition was instituted by the petitioner registered as Writ-A No. 35047 of 2017(Sachchidanand Tripathi Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others) wherein the following order was passed: "We have heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Srijan Mehrotra holding brief of Sri A.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 and Sri Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 5 and 6. In substance, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by non-disposal of his representation dated 8.4.2017 made before the respondent no. 3. Without expressing any opinion on merit of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. The petitioner is also at liberty to annex true copy of the earlier representation along with certified copy of this order. It is also observed that in case, the respondent no. 3 finds that the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for, the same may be extended to the petitioner within a further period of two months. In case, the respondent no. 3 finds that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit, the reasons for the same may be recorded." 5. Mere directions granted by Court to decide representation cannot operate to condone the delay or wash away the laches. The discussion has the benefit of authority in point. The Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Hai Vs. State Of U.P. And Others rendered in Special Appeal No. 58 of 2024 held thus: "This Court in Special Appeal No. 58 of 2024 decided vide following orders passed on 6.2.2024:- 1. Claim of the respondent-petitioner for revision in pay scale has been rejected by the learned Single Judge after noticing the fact that such revision took place on 19.02.2009, whereafter the employee retired on 30.04.2011. The fixation of pay scale in 2009 has been challenged by filing a writ in the year 2023. The inordinate delay of almost 14 years since has not been explained as such learned Single Judge has rejected the writ. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have for the first time informed the appellant regarding rejection of his claim on 26.10.2021 and the writ petition was filed within a reasonable period thereafter. It is submitted that there is no negligence or laches on the part of the appellant in approaching the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ. 3. Facts, as have been placed before the Court undisputedly show that pay fixation order of the appellant was passed in the year 2009. He also retired in the year 2011. It is after waiting for more than ten years that the appellant filed Writ- A No. 10175 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to accord consideration to the claim of the appellant. The authority at that stage informed the petitioner that his claim cannot be considered and that the previous fixation of salary was as per law. 4. In the facts of the case, we find that the filing of the writ petition in year 2021 or a direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider claim of the petitioner would not adequately explain the inordinate laches in raising the claim before this Court. From 2011 onwards, the appellant did nothing and after ten years for the first time filed the writ. Merely because the authorities informed the petitioner about rejection of his claim, would not mean that the previous laches of almost ten years stand explained. 5. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is in accord with the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. A. Durairaj (Dead) By Lrs; (2010) 14 SCC 389, which is as under: "13. It is well settled that anyone who feels aggrieved by non- promotion or non-selection should approach the Court/Tribunal as early as possible. If a person having a justifiable grievance allows the matter to become stale and approaches the Court/Tribunal belatedly, grant of any relief on the basis of such belated application would lead to serious administrative complications to the employer and difficulties to the other employees as it will upset the settled position regarding seniority and promotions which has been granted to others over the years. Further, where a claim is raised beyond a decade or two from the date of cause of action, the employer will be at a great disadvantage to effectively contest or counter the claim, as the officers who dealt with the matter and/or the relevant records relating to the matter may no loNeutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31344nger be available. Therefore, even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 14. This is a typical case where an employee gives a representation in a matter which is stale and old, after two decades and gets a direction of the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the same; and thereafter again approaches the Tribunal alleging that there is delay in disposal of the representation (or if there is an order rejecting the representation, then file an application to challenge the rejection, treating the date of rejection of the representation as the date of cause of action). 15. This Court had occasion to examine such situations in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar and held as follows: (SCCp.66, paras 14-16) "14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. ....... 15. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A Court or Tribunal, before directing 'consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a 'live' issue or whether it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue. It it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue or dispute, the Court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct 'consideration' without itself examining of the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect. 16. We are therefore of the view that the High Court ought to have affirmed the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application of the respondent for retrospective promotion from 1976, on the ground of delay and laches." 6. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed." 6. In wake the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Pravin PRAVIN VERMA PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The impugned order dated 13.03.2018 declines the claim made by the petitioner with other various employees who were appointed as Chemist Grade-I.
3. The impugned order while invalidating the claim of the petitioner for parity with the aforesaid said category of employees records that the said category of employees were appointed as Grade-I Chemist after an open selection procedure. Though in the year 1978 due to non availability of eligible candidates departmental applications were invited from Grade-II Chemist for participating in the departmental examination for appointment as Grade-I Chemist. The petitioner did not participate in the aforesaid selection and cannot be equated with the said category of employees (Grade-I Chemists).The claim of the parity with other employees is untenable. The grand of ACP benefits to the aforesaid category of employees is governed by Order No. 2577- मम0 सस0 प 0-02/ उननिलल/2008 नदिनिमसक:27.10.2008. The petitioner does not satisfy the prerequisite of the aforesaid order to avail such benefits. As per the said order dated 27.10.2008, ACP benefits are available to those employees who were appointed by direct recruitment/appointment from the lower class to a higher category of post. No perversity in the impugned order has been shown. The order does not merit any interference.
4. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly the petitioner superannuated in the year 2007. He made a representation for grant of various service benefits claiming parity with other employees in the year 2017. True it is, that a writ petition was instituted by the petitioner registered as Writ-A No. 35047 of 2017(Sachchidanand Tripathi Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others) wherein the following order was passed: "We have heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Srijan Mehrotra holding brief of Sri A.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 and Sri Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 5 and 6. In substance, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by non-disposal of his representation dated 8.4.2017 made before the respondent no. 3. Without expressing any opinion on merit of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. The petitioner is also at liberty to annex true copy of the earlier representation along with certified copy of this order. It is also observed that in case, the respondent no. 3 finds that the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for, the same may be extended to the petitioner within a further period of two months. In case, the respondent no. 3 finds that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit, the reasons for the same may be recorded." 5. Mere directions granted by Court to decide representation cannot operate to condone the delay or wash away the laches. The discussion has the benefit of authority in point. The Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Hai Vs. State Of U.P. And Others rendered in Special Appeal No. 58 of 2024 held thus: "This Court in Special Appeal No. 58 of 2024 decided vide following orders passed on 6.2.2024:- 1. Claim of the respondent-petitioner for revision in pay scale has been rejected by the learned Single Judge after noticing the fact that such revision took place on 19.02.2009, whereafter the employee retired on 30.04.2011. The fixation of pay scale in 2009 has been challenged by filing a writ in the year 2023. The inordinate delay of almost 14 years since has not been explained as such learned Single Judge has rejected the writ. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have for the first time informed the appellant regarding rejection of his claim on 26.10.2021 and the writ petition was filed within a reasonable period thereafter. It is submitted that there is no negligence or laches on the part of the appellant in approaching the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ. 3. Facts, as have been placed before the Court undisputedly show that pay fixation order of the appellant was passed in the year 2009. He also retired in the year 2011. It is after waiting for more than ten years that the appellant filed Writ- A No. 10175 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to accord consideration to the claim of the appellant. The authority at that stage informed the petitioner that his claim cannot be considered and that the previous fixation of salary was as per law. 4. In the facts of the case, we find that the filing of the writ petition in year 2021 or a direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider claim of the petitioner would not adequately explain the inordinate laches in raising the claim before this Court. From 2011 onwards, the appellant did nothing and after ten years for the first time filed the writ. Merely because the authorities informed the petitioner about rejection of his claim, would not mean that the previous laches of almost ten years stand explained. 5. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is in accord with the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. A. Durairaj (Dead) By Lrs; (2010) 14 SCC 389, which is as under: "13. It is well settled that anyone who feels aggrieved by non- promotion or non-selection should approach the Court/Tribunal as early as possible. If a person having a justifiable grievance allows the matter to become stale and approaches the Court/Tribunal belatedly, grant of any relief on the basis of such belated application would lead to serious administrative complications to the employer and difficulties to the other employees as it will upset the settled position regarding seniority and promotions which has been granted to others over the years. Further, where a claim is raised beyond a decade or two from the date of cause of action, the employer will be at a great disadvantage to effectively contest or counter the claim, as the officers who dealt with the matter and/or the relevant records relating to the matter may no loNeutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31344nger be available. Therefore, even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 14. This is a typical case where an employee gives a representation in a matter which is stale and old, after two decades and gets a direction of the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the same; and thereafter again approaches the Tribunal alleging that there is delay in disposal of the representation (or if there is an order rejecting the representation, then file an application to challenge the rejection, treating the date of rejection of the representation as the date of cause of action). 15. This Court had occasion to examine such situations in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar and held as follows: (SCCp.66, paras 14-16) "14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. ....... 15. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A Court or Tribunal, before directing 'consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a 'live' issue or whether it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue. It it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue or dispute, the Court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct 'consideration' without itself examining of the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect. 16. We are therefore of the view that the High Court ought to have affirmed the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application of the respondent for retrospective promotion from 1976, on the ground of delay and laches." 6. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed." 6. In wake the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Pravin PRAVIN VERMA PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad