The Tripura High Court while dismissing an appeal filed against the order passed by the writ court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for regularization of service and held that the mere filing of representation does not arrest the march of time and revive a stale cause of action and that mere recommendations by the subordinate authorities do not create a cause of action until a decision is taken by the competent authority.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of the Writ Court whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for regularization of service in terms of the scheme of 2008-2009 was declined on the ground that the same is absolutely barred by the doctrine of delay and laches.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that delay and laches should not be treated to defeat the legitimate grievance of the petitioner since she has been serving the respondents for the last 25 years and further, the appellant was all along diligent in pursuing her representation with the hope that the respondents would themselves take a decision on her regularisation since recommendations have been made by the Zonal Development Officer, North Zone, TTAADC as late as 14.09.2017 and 30.10.2019 respectively.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the appearing on behalf of the state opposed the prayer and pointed out that a Writ of Mandamus or direction at this stage after the abolition of the scheme in 2018 would lead to the opening of the pandora’s box in matters which are stale and further the appellant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of Class-X pass and thus no regularisation can be made in teeth of the extant rules.
Observations of the Court:
The court after going through the impugned order stated that the same does not suffer from any infirmities and thus the same does not require any interference by the court at the appellant stage. Further, it was stated that the petitioner sat over the matter for almost 14 years since the regularization scheme was framed in the year 2008 before approaching the Writ Court in the year 2022 when the scheme itself was abolished in the year 2018 and the mere filing of representation does not arrest the march of time and revive a stale cause of action.
Further, the court stated that mere recommendations by the subordinate authorities do not create a cause of action until a decision is taken by the competent authority and the one-time decision of the Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi cannot continue to open up a window of relief for litigants who sit back and wait at the periphery when other diligent persons approach the Court within reasonable time for redressal of their grievances.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Smt. Lila Malakar vs. The State of Tripura and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Purkayastha
Case No.: WA No. 66 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. P. Roy Barman and Ms. A. Debbarma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharya
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
