Rabindranath Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Amrita Sinha, J

The petitioner is a retired employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. The employee retired from service on attaining his normal age of superannuation on 30th September 2008. The petitioner for the first time raised his grievance for non-payment of an increment, which according to him fell due in the year 1984, by way of a letter written in September 2013. The petitioner thereafter waited till July 2019 for filing the instant writ petition praying for grant of one increment in his favour.

The learned advocate representing the Distribution Company raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the matter by the petitioner.

The respondents were directed to file a report in the form of an affidavit.

In the report, the respondents have categorically stated that the fixation of the pay of the petitioner was made in accordance with the office order no. 3734 dated 30th January, 1985. The petitioner did not exercise his option as per the office order. According to the respondents, the petitioner was supposed to exercise his option, which he did not and, accordingly, the petitioner was given his higher scale of pay with effect from 1st August 1984. Had the petitioner exercised his option, in that event, the petitioner could have retained his old pay until the date on which he earns his next increment.

It appears that the petitioner, when in service, did not raise any issue with regard to non-payment of his increment, which according to him fell due in the year 1984. It is too late in the day, in the year 2019, to open the issue of non-payment of increment of the year 1984, all over again.

Though it is true that there is no fixed period or time limit mentioned for filing writ petitions before a writ court, but it is settled law that an aggrieved person ought to approach the court at the earliest opportunity. The court has to exercise its discretion to entertain petitions which are filed at an inordinately delayed date.

In the instant case, after perusing the records, I am of the view that the delay caused by the petitioner in approaching the writ court is not liable to be condoned. The submission of the petitioner that it is a continuous wrong made by the respondents and, accordingly, the writ petition can be entertained even at the delayed stage is not accepted by this court.

The writ petition is hopelessly time-barred and, accordingly, does not warrant any interference.

W.P. No. 14028 (W) of 2019 is dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.