Dinesh Kumar vs The Zonal Manager And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dinesh Kumar vs The Zonal Manager And Others on 2 May, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395




CWP-9986-2024                     1            2024:PHHC:060395

133
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CWP-9986-2024
                                         Date of Decision:02.05.2024

DINESH KUMAR                                              ......... Petitioner

                                      Versus


THE ZONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS                              ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    Mr. S.K. Daaria, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                    ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of decision of respondent to discontinue his service. He is further seeking direction to respondent to reinstate him.

2. The petitioner claims that from 01.05.2000 to March' 2021, he worked with respondent as part time Sweeper. He was getting Rs.475/- per day. The respondent abruptly in March' 2021 discontinued his service. He was not served with any notice or order and is simply asked not to come to Bank.

3. The petitioner concededly was working as Daily wage worker with respondent. His services were discontinued in March' 2021 and he opted to remain indolent till March' 2024 and at this belated stage, he has filed present writ petition.

4. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner submits 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2024 13:22:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395 CWP-9986-2024 2 2024:PHHC:060395 that petitioner belongs to poor strata of the society, thus, question of delay may be ignored.

5. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non- deliberate delay.

6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in 'Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-

                               2 of 4
            ::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2024 13:22:06 :::
                              Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395




CWP-9986-2024                 3            2024:PHHC:060395

suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2024 13:22:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395 CWP-9986-2024 4 2024:PHHC:060395 on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court."

7. In case in hand, the petitioner was daily wage worker and he was not appointed against a regular or sanctioned post. Thus, he does not have vested or fundamental right to claim continuity of service. His services as claimed by him were discontinued in March' 2021 and by present petition, he is trying to revive a right which has already lapsed.

8. In the wake of aforesaid findings and judgment of Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
02.05.2024
Ali
                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                 4 of 4
             ::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2024 13:22:06 :::