State Of U.P. & Others (Now Serb) vs Jai Ram Maurya & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 47 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 47 ALL
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2012

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. & Others (Now Serb) vs Jai Ram Maurya & Others on 9 April, 2012

Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Devendra Kumar Arora




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 24
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1349 of 1996
 

 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. & Others (Now Serb)
 
Respondent :- Jai Ram Maurya & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Harshwardhan
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.1989, passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.07.1989 shows that the opposite parties (petitioners herein) i.e. the State of U.P. & the Director General, Health & Family Welfare Service, U.P. are directed to place the petitioners (opposite parties no. 1 and 2 herein) in the higher scale prescribed for Graduate Family Planning Health Assistants i.e. Rs.160-320, as revised from time to time, with effect from the date of their taking over charge of the said post and also to give them all consequential service benefits such as arrars of salary allowances and seniority etc.

As indicated above, the quashing of a document is sought, was issued in July, 1989 and the writ petition has been preferred in the year 1996. There is no satisfactory explanation in the writ petition explaining the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition.

While exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has ample power to refuse the grant of writ of certiorari when it is found that there was delay due to negligence or omission by the petitioners to assert his right at a time where there was acquiescence in order on their part. By a catena of decisioins, it has been settled that delay defeats equity and Court helps only those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights. The writ petition suffers from inordinate, unexplained delay.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.4.2012

Suresh/Tanveer