AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 9.2.2021 filed as Annexure P/1 wherein petitioner is to be granted 70%, 80% and 90% of the wages for three years period during probation. Thereafter, full salary and wages are to be granted.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled to get 100% of the salary during period of probation. It is also submitted that identical cases have been disposed off directing respondents to grant full salary during probation period.
Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that appointment order was issued on 9.2.2021. Petitioner did not challenge the order of appointment in which said condition was imposed. Petitioner has come before this Court after 5 years. Petition suffers from delay and laches. Petitioner is fence-sitter and benefit extended to similarly situated employees may not be granted to him.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is true that no specific period of limitation is prescribed for instituting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, absence of prescribed limitation period does not confer an unrestricted right to approach the Court at any time. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and is subject to principles of delay, laches and reasonable diligence. Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Ranveer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178, held that where no period of limitation is prescribed, jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable period, which is to be determined having regard to the nature and scheme of the statute, rights and liabilities created thereunder and other relevant circumstances. Though the case concerned suo motu revisional powers under M.P. Land Revenue Code, Full Bench considered 180 days to be a reasonable period. Full Bench also reiterated the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt—the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. In Limitation Act 1963, Article 113 prescribes three years for suit for which no limitation period is provided, while Article 137 prescribes three years for an application for which no period is prescribed. Supreme Court has also recognized that the limitation prescribed for corresponding civil remedy may ordinarily furnish a reasonable standard for judging delay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No watertight compartmentalization of three years can be done and period of delay is to be considered in accordance with circumstances of each case. However, three years bench mark is relaxed standard and same is applied in India considering the legal education of population and their awareness regarding law. If explanation is proper then delay and laches can be condoned otherwise petition is to be dismissed being hit by principle of delay and laches.
Petitioner has not raised any reasons for delay in filing of the petition. Apex Court in case of Damor Nanabhai Manabhai and others Vs. The State of Gujarat and others-SLP (C) No. 5619/2024 held in para-9 as under:-
9.In the present case, the petitioners, whose services stand terminated, are not identically situated as the writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4293 of 2021, who raised a claim in respect of higher grade pay scales while being in service. Similarly, while a court order in favour of a set of persons may, in appropriate cases, be extended to others who are identically situated, this is subject to recognized exceptions, including delay, laches and acquiescence. Those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, this Court has explained these principles succinctly in the following portion:
“22.The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently
22.2However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
Taking into account aforesaid law and circumstances, if a petition is filed beyond period of three years then same will be hit by principle of delay and laches. Petitioner is required to furnish an explanation for delay and laches. In this case, condition of payment of 70%, 80% and 90% of wages for three years of probation period is laid down in order dated 9.2.2021. Order will remain effective till 9.2.2024 and thereafter petition is filed within a period of three years, therefore, there is no delay in filing of petition.
For reasons laid down in order dated 31.10.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 2977/2025, Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are free to make payment of minimum of the salary for which petitioner is entitled for probationary period.
With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.