Pawan Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

“That the respondents be directed to treat the case of the petitioner in view of order dated 21 July 2023 (Annexure P-2).

II. That the respondents be directed to give the petitioner the promotion as principal till his retirement on 30th September 2025.

II. That the respondents be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in view of Annexure P-2 i.e increments, regular pay scale and all other benefits which are available to regular employees.”

“(7)

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the claim made by the respondent was highly belated as the OA itself was filed by the respondent in the year 2019, i.e. more than 11 years after he had retired from service on 31.01.2008. The petitioner had filed the OA seeking the benefit of promotions and arrears of pay and allowances as had been granted to his juniors during the course of his employment, ignoring his claim.

(8)

Whether repeated representations can justify delay and laches in approaching the Tribunal/court? The law on this issue is well settled. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. Rajmati Singh, whereby dealing with the issue of delay and laches, it was held as under:

"12.

In our considered view, the respondent like any vigilant citizen, especially given that she does not belong to economically or socially backward segments of the society, was expected to assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. Repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past. The respondent's difficulties do not end there, given that her services were brought to an end when she was denied to resume her duties in the year 1974. She was, thus, required to seek a declaration of her continuity or have a writ of mandamus issued for her reinstatement. She did not do either."

(9)

Further reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this Court in State of Orissa vs. Laxmi Narayan Das'. It has been opined therein as under:

"16.

... 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 forgotten 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. 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)

For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court cannot be sustained. The OA and the Writ Petition filed by the respondent deserve to be dismissed on account of huge delay in availing the remedy for redressal of his grievance.

(11)

The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court as well as the Tribunal are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.”