University College Ret. Teachers Welfare Asso. Lucknow and another v. State of U.P. and others)

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners during the arguments apprised the Court that when the earlier order was not complied, the petitioner has preferred a contempt petition bearing no.1489 of 2016. The contempt petition was dismissed on non-prosecution vide order dated 28.07.2022.

5. The said order has never been communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that when he visited to Allahabad High Court, then he came to know about the order passed in the contempt petition.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appeared on advance accepted notice on behalf of the State respondents vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the instant writ petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law. It is specific case of the petitioner that he was never communicated the impugned order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, State Government, Shiksha Anubhag, Lucknow. Therefore, he was not aware about the said order.

7. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner while explaining the delay in filing the instant writ petition disclosed the reasons that he came to know about the impugned order in 2025, when he visited the office of the previous Advocate. It is further submitted that the reasons for explaining the delay in filing the writ is very vague as no date and time was mentioned.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submitted that the instant petition has been filed on an inadvertent delay of nine years without explaining any cogent reasons, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appeared on advance accepted notice on behalf of the State-respondents, perused the contents made in writ petition and the documents on record.

10. For explaining the delay, the reasons stated in paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition. The relevant paragraph nos.5 to 7 of the writ petition, are quoted as below: "5. That the order dated 28.07.2022, passed in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.1489 of 2016, was never communicated to the petitioner because the petitioner's previous counsel was no longer available due to elevation to the Bench. As a result, the order dated 28.07.2022 was not conveyed to the petitioner. It was only when the petitioner inquired about the said contempt petition, visited Allahabad and approached the former counsel that these facts came to the petitioner's knowledge."

6. That in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1489 of 2016 the compliance affidavit filed on 08.07.2016 in which order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016 was enclosed as Annexure No.1 of compliance of affidavit. For kind consideration of the Hon'ble High Court a True Copy of affidavit of compliance dated 08.07.2016 filed by Standing Counsel is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.4 to this writ petition.

7. That the order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016 was never communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners became aware of the said order only on 03.05.2025, upon collecting the case file from the office of their previous counsel. Consequently, the order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016, by which the petitioners' representation was rejected, could not be challenged earlier in prescribed time."

11. I have also perused the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in contempt proceedings, which is appended as Annexure – 3, the same is quoted as under:- "List has been revised but nobody is present on behalf of the applicants. The applicants are before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 11.9.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 52170 of 2015. From perusal of the record, it appears that either the order of the writ Court has been complied with or the parties have lost their interest. In the circumstances, it is needless to keep pending this contempt application. In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed. However, the applicants will be at liberty to move an application for recall of the order in case cause of action still survives."

12. In paragraph no.2 of the said order, the Contempt Court has observed that since the State has already complied the order as directed by the Writ Court vide order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.52170 of 2015, no case is made out for initiation of contempt proceeding and contempt case was also dismissed.

13. Thereafter, I have perused the counter/compliance affidavit filed by the State in the contempt proceeding i.e. Annexure - 4 of the writ petition. In paragraph no. 5 of the said counter affidavit, it is stated that in pursuance of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Writ - A No.52170 of 2015, the order dated 04.07.2016 has been passed, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. Paragraph no. 5 of the reply is quoted below:- "5. That, after receiving order, passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court, dated

11.09.2015, the report has been sought by the deponent from the authorities at district level and on the basis of report, obtained from the district level, it is reported that all the petitioners have retired after completion of age of 62 years and in terms of policy decision the teachers who retired after attaining the aged of 62 years are not entitled for gratuity allowance. After taking into account the policy decision and the report, of district authorities a detailed order has been passed, in compliance of Hon'ble Court's order, on 04.07.2016, by which the representation of petitioners, as directed by the Hon'ble Court, has been decided. Copy of order dated 04.07.2016 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit."

14. I am surprised to see that the petitioners have filed amended petition and also appended the counter affidavit of the compliance report of the contempt proceeding, but has not stated anywhere in the writ petition that the said order impugned is already on record before the Contempt Court. The Contempt Court after perusing the compliance report filed by the State in contempt proceeding, dismissed the contempt petition.

15. Taking into consideration of aforesaid observations and facts, I am of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petitioner ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. A petitioner, who approaches the Court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. In a given case, there are extraordinary delay of nine years without any sufficient explanation for condoning the same.

16. In case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others Vs. State of W.B. and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effects: "56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is 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.

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006: (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84]).

58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the court depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental rights and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose."

17. Having regard to the aforesaid principles of law enunciated herein above, when turn my attention to facts on law, it would not detain me for too long for accepting the plea of the respondent for dismissing the instant writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

18. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. . Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners during the arguments apprised the Court that when the earlier order was not complied, the petitioner has preferred a contempt petition bearing no.1489 of 2016. The contempt petition was dismissed on non-prosecution vide order dated 28.07.2022.

5. The said order has never been communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that when he visited to Allahabad High Court, then he came to know about the order passed in the contempt petition.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appeared on advance accepted notice on behalf of the State respondents vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the instant writ petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law. It is specific case of the petitioner that he was never communicated the impugned order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, State Government, Shiksha Anubhag, Lucknow. Therefore, he was not aware about the said order.

7. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner while explaining the delay in filing the instant writ petition disclosed the reasons that he came to know about the impugned order in 2025, when he visited the office of the previous Advocate. It is further submitted that the reasons for explaining the delay in filing the writ is very vague as no date and time was mentioned.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submitted that the instant petition has been filed on an inadvertent delay of nine years without explaining any cogent reasons, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appeared on advance accepted notice on behalf of the State-respondents, perused the contents made in writ petition and the documents on record.

10. For explaining the delay, the reasons stated in paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition. The relevant paragraph nos.5 to 7 of the writ petition, are quoted as below: "5. That the order dated 28.07.2022, passed in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.1489 of 2016, was never communicated to the petitioner because the petitioner's previous counsel was no longer available due to elevation to the Bench. As a result, the order dated 28.07.2022 was not conveyed to the petitioner. It was only when the petitioner inquired about the said contempt petition, visited Allahabad and approached the former counsel that these facts came to the petitioner's knowledge."

6. That in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1489 of 2016 the compliance affidavit filed on 08.07.2016 in which order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016 was enclosed as Annexure No.1 of compliance of affidavit. For kind consideration of the Hon'ble High Court a True Copy of affidavit of compliance dated 08.07.2016 filed by Standing Counsel is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.4 to this writ petition.

7. That the order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016 was never communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners became aware of the said order only on 03.05.2025, upon collecting the case file from the office of their previous counsel. Consequently, the order dated 30.06.2016/04.07.2016, by which the petitioners' representation was rejected, could not be challenged earlier in prescribed time."

11. I have also perused the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in contempt proceedings, which is appended as Annexure – 3, the same is quoted as under:- "List has been revised but nobody is present on behalf of the applicants. The applicants are before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 11.9.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 52170 of 2015. From perusal of the record, it appears that either the order of the writ Court has been complied with or the parties have lost their interest. In the circumstances, it is needless to keep pending this contempt application. In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed. However, the applicants will be at liberty to move an application for recall of the order in case cause of action still survives."

12. In paragraph no.2 of the said order, the Contempt Court has observed that since the State has already complied the order as directed by the Writ Court vide order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.52170 of 2015, no case is made out for initiation of contempt proceeding and contempt case was also dismissed.

13. Thereafter, I have perused the counter/compliance affidavit filed by the State in the contempt proceeding i.e. Annexure - 4 of the writ petition. In paragraph no. 5 of the said counter affidavit, it is stated that in pursuance of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Writ - A No.52170 of 2015, the order dated 04.07.2016 has been passed, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. Paragraph no. 5 of the reply is quoted below:- "5. That, after receiving order, passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court, dated

11.09.2015, the report has been sought by the deponent from the authorities at district level and on the basis of report, obtained from the district level, it is reported that all the petitioners have retired after completion of age of 62 years and in terms of policy decision the teachers who retired after attaining the aged of 62 years are not entitled for gratuity allowance. After taking into account the policy decision and the report, of district authorities a detailed order has been passed, in compliance of Hon'ble Court's order, on 04.07.2016, by which the representation of petitioners, as directed by the Hon'ble Court, has been decided. Copy of order dated 04.07.2016 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit."

14. I am surprised to see that the petitioners have filed amended petition and also appended the counter affidavit of the compliance report of the contempt proceeding, but has not stated anywhere in the writ petition that the said order impugned is already on record before the Contempt Court. The Contempt Court after perusing the compliance report filed by the State in contempt proceeding, dismissed the contempt petition.

15. Taking into consideration of aforesaid observations and facts, I am of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petitioner ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. A petitioner, who approaches the Court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. In a given case, there are extraordinary delay of nine years without any sufficient explanation for condoning the same.

16. In case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others Vs. State of W.B. and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effects: "56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is 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.

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006: (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84]).

58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the court depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental rights and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose."

17. Having regard to the aforesaid principles of law enunciated herein above, when turn my attention to facts on law, it would not detain me for too long for accepting the plea of the respondent for dismissing the instant writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

18. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. . Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad