Dr. Brajesh Gupta vs State Government of M.P.

Alok Aradhe, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.

In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is Veterinary Doctor seeks direction to the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner for a period of 14.01.2002 to 20.06.2002 along with interest.

Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Veterinary Doctor. The petitioner submitted an application for participating in the training programme on Globalization of the Trade and International Quality Standards: New Technical Regulations and Voluntary standards in infectious animal disease control by respondent No. 2. In pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was permitted to attend training for a period of 6 months. In this petition, the petitioner is claiming salary for the period of training.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to have been paid salary for the period of training. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has invited the attention of this Court to the Document Annexure R/1 i.e. the application, in which the petitioner himself stated that he would proceed for the training without claiming salary for the period of training. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim salary for the period of training.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner contained in Annexure R/1 dated 18.12.2001, it is evident that the petitioner had stated that he would proceed for training without claiming salary for the period of training. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has not specifically denied the averments that he had agreed to participate in the training programme without claiming salary. The petitioner has merely stated in the rejoinder that he gave an undertaking, which has been misread. Besides that the petitioner had participated in the training programme for a period from 14.01.2002 till 20.06.2002 and the writ petition has been filed after lapse of 6 years.

It is equally well settled in law that though no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India however, in case the person who do not approach the Court expeditiously and put forward the stale claims, in such a case the writ petition should not be entertained. [See: P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ]. The petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. The petitioner has slept over his rights and the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him to any extraordinary relief from this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [See: Basanti Prasad Vs. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board and Others, .

In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.