AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioners (who were daily wager working as Electrician Helper, Fitter and Mali-cum-Chowkidar) minimum of the pay scale, revised from time to time, with permissible allowances as were being paid to similarly placed regular employees with all monetary benefits in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 213-2013 titled as ‘State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others’, the petitioners being similar situated to the persons in the above mentioned civil appeal; AND/OR for issuance of a direction to the respondent to decide and consider the representation dated 29.10.2017 of the petitioners in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit’s case (supra).
The matter pertains to the year 2018 and notice of motion was issued by the Predecessor Bench vide order dated 07.08.2018. Perusal of the order-sheet(s) reveal(s) that after issuance of notice of motion, the matter has been listed for hearing 09 times, out of which on 06 dates of hearing i.e. on 09.03.2022, 20.10.2022, 23.02.2023, 20.09.2023, 04.12.2024 and 01.05.2025 the petitioners have gone un-represented.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has informed that by way of filing the instant petition, the petitioners who are 04 in number are seeking minimum regular pay scale. It is pointed out that the petitioners were regularized as far back as in the year 1992; whereas the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2018 seeking regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointments-as detailed in tabulated form at page No. 49 of the paper-book which reads as follows:-
| Date | of | |||
| regularization | ||||
| and post | ||||
| 01.10.2003 | 01.10.2003 | |||
| Sewer Man | Sewer Man | |||
| 01.04.1993 | 01.04.1993 | |||
| Fitter Coolie | Fitter Coolie | |||
| 01.04.1993 | 01.04.1993 | |||
| MCC | MCC | |||
| Tara | Chand S/o |
| Ram Chand | Ram Chand |
| Daya Nand S/o | |
| Sh. Madan Lal | |
| Tara | Chand |
| through | his wife |
| Bhagoti Devi | |
| Madan | Lal S/o |
| Sh. Ghanshyam |
Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the claim of the petitioners is barred by delay and laches.
Heard.
Today, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners, despite the case having been called twice. As noted above, out of 09 last dates of hearing, on 06 dates of hearing, the petitioners have
| 31.01.1996 | 31.01.1996 | |
| MCC | MCC | |
gone un-represented, which shows the petitioners have exhibited an utterly casual attitude in his pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the petitioner in the interest of justice. On the other hand, the petitioners have adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the petitioners nor their counsel is seriously interested in pursuing the present matter.
Moreover, the claim of the petitioners is barred by delay and laches. There is no reason forthcoming from the writ petition to explain this inordinate and extraordinary delay in filing the present petition. Such a delayed claim cannot be entertained. Especially, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984, wherein it is held as under: -
“A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Equality - Extending the benefit of judgments to similar situated persons (fence sitters) - Normal rule is that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently - This rule is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delay as well as acquiescence - Same would be valid ground to dismiss claim - Exception is inapplicable in cases where judgment pronounced by Court is judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not.
B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 -Appointment - Cancellation of appointment - Challenged -Delay and latches - Acquiescence - Cancellation challenged after nine years when some of similarly situated aggrieved persons got relief from Court - Unexplained delay and latches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years - Totally unjust to give appointment after a period of 27 years - Order of High Court allowing claim of appellant set aside.”
The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:-
“23.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:
(1)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.
(2)However, this principle is subject to well recognised 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.
(3)However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.”
The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sudhir Bala vs. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2678248, decided on 11.12.2024; wherein it is held that “Delay and laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disentitle a petitioner to relief, especially when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in asserting one's rights.”
Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.