Prof. Dr. Devendra Swaroop Bhargava vs Union Of India And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saurabh Adhikari, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent No.1 and Mr. Pratik Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a mandamus directing the second respondent to re-fix the petitioner's pension after counting his earlier services i.e. from 06.09.1960 to 30.06.1998, and allow consequential benefits including arrears of salary; and a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 31.10.2017 contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition.

The petitioner was, hitherto, a Professor in the University of the Roorkee which was subsequently converted as IIT, Roorkee. He joined service as a Reader on 03.02.1979, and was promoted as Professor (Environmental) in the year 1985. He retired from service on 30.06.1998. Even before he retired from service, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.616 of 1997 wherein he sought a mandamus to the respondents to immediately sanction the full pensionary benefits to teachers of Roorkee University, (which evidently included himself), taking full account of their service anywhere in India in any engineering Institution irrespective of the fact whether the Institution is a government one or a private one, and irrespective of the breaks in service; and a writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India, and the University Grants Commission to frame legislation for considering the entire service rendered by teachers anywhere in India, irrespective of the breaks in service, for pensionary benefits.

The said Writ Petition (Civil) No.616 of 1997 was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court by its order dated 15.12.1997. While the relief sought for in W.P. (Civil) No.616 of 1997 was with respect to all teachers of the University of Roorkee (later, the I.I.T., Roorkee), the present writ petition, filed 20 years after withdrawal of the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court, is confined to the petitioner alone. In the present writ petition also the petitioner, by seeking inclusion of his earlier service from 06.09.1960 onwards, is, in effect, seeking inclusion of the past service rendered by him in other Engineering Institutions in India (both Government and Private) before he joined service in the University of Roorkee on 03.02.1979. Such a relief is sought by him, by way of the present writ petition, more than twenty years after the writ petition filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court by its order dated 15.12.1997, without granting him liberty to avail his judicial remedies elsewhere.

While the petitioner joined service of the University of Roorkee in 1979, he retired from service in 1998. The relief sought for, in this writ petition, is to include the service rendered by him prior thereto from 06.09.1960 onwards to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of his retiral benefits. Except to state that a representation was filed on 31.10.2017, no explanation has been furnished for the inordinate delay, of more than two decades after he retired from service, in filing the present writ petition on 12.12.2018 though he retired from service on 30.06.1998. The Supreme Court, in State of M.P. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal: (1986) 4 SCC 566, observed:

".................Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent of the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction....."

(emphasis supplied)

The writ petition is hit by undue delay and laches. In the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, this Court would not come to the aid of the indolent and the lethargic, or consider grant of relief from 06.09.1960 i.e. more than half a century ago. The writ petition as filed is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.