Sandhya Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3247 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
***
 
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 326  of 2022
 
(Arising out of Writ A No. 14560 of 2021)
 

 
Smt. Sandhya Singh                                                              ...Appellant
 
		 Through:-  Mr. Chandan Sharma, Advocate
 

 
Vs.
 

 
State of U.P. and others                                                   ...Respondents  
 
		Through:- Mr. Ankit Gaur, State Law Officer for    		                            respondents no. 1 to 3
 

 
CORAM :	HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,CHIEF JUSTICE
 
                    HON'BLE J. J. MUNIR, JUDGE
 
		
 
ORDER

1. Order dated November 1, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge has been impugned by filing the present intra-Court appeal.

2. The writ petition was dismissed on account of delay and laches. The writ petition was filed by the widow of deceased employee, who retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on July 31, 2012 and died on July 13, 2020.

3. The claim, as is evident from the prayer made in the writ petition, was for grant of arrears and revised pay scale in terms of the circular dated March 26, 2010, which was issued during the service period of late husband of the appellant as he retired more than two years thereafter. He did not make any claim with reference to the aforesaid circular, either during his service period or immediately after his retirement till such time he died on July 13, 2020. The writ petition was filed more than one year thereafter.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the present appeal inasmuch we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on account of delay and laches. The issue as to how the petition, filed after huge delay, has to be dealt with has been considered by the Courts on number of occasions and the opinion expressed is that these petitions are required to be dismissed at the threshold.

5. In P. S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, wherein it has been laid down that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for the relief.

6. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.

7. In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others 2013 (6) SLR 629, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches observed that even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.

8. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T. T. Murali Babu 2014 (4) SCC 108, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined as under:-

"13. First, we shall deal with the facet of delay. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others, AIR 1969 SC 329, the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is as follows:-

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy."

15. In State of M. P. and others etc. etc. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others etc. etc., AIR 1987 SC 251, the Court observed that it is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. It has been further stated therein that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice.

16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant "a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. ... A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with `Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

9. In State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri and others 2015 (15) SCC 602, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding delay and laches in raising the dispute before the Court. It was opined that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioners therein was not required to be addressed on merits on account of delay and laches. The relevant paras thereof are extracted below:-

"27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and eventually proclaim "Deo gratias - thanks to God".

28. Another aspect needs to be stated. A writ court while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injustice. The present case, need less to emphasise, did not justify adjudication. It deserves to be thrown overboard at the very threshold, for the writ petitioner had accepted the order of dismissal for half a decade and cultivated the feeling that he could freeze time and forever remain in the realm of constant present."

10. The aforesaid view was followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana 2018 (5) SCC 798.

11. Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation v. Shree Lal Meena (2019) 4 SCC 479, considering the principle of delay and laches, opined as under:-

"36. We may also find that the appellant remained silent for years together and that this Court, taking a particular view subsequently, in Sheel Kumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2011)12 SCC 197 would not entitle stale claims to be raised on this behalf, like that of the appellant. In fact the appellant slept over the matter for almost a little over two years even after the pronouncement of the judgment.

37. Thus, the endeavour of the appellant, to approach this Court seeking the relief, as prayed for, is clearly a misadventure, which is liable to be rejected, and the appeal is dismissed."

12. Recently, in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And others v. Shyam Kishore Singh (Civil Appeal No.1009 of 2020, decided on 5.2.2020), the issue regarding the delay and laches, was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and a petition filed belatedly, seeking change in the date of birth in the service record, was dismissed.

13. Relying on T.T. Murali Babu' case (supra) and R.K. Zalpuri'case (supra), same view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. N. Murugesan and others (2022) 2 SCC 25 observing:

"We have already dealt with the principles of law that may have a bearing on this case. ... there was an unexplained and studied reluctance to raise the issue .... Hence, on the principle governing delay, laches ... Respondent No. 1 ought not to have been granted any relief by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

14. In the case in hand, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking the above authorities into account, in our opinion, the appellant was not entitled to any relief and, thus, the order passed by learned Single Judge warrants no interference.

15. The appeal lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                                       (J. J. Munir)                  (Rajesh Bindal)
 
					              Judge     	               Chief Justice
 

 
Allahabad
 
May 18, 2022
 
Manish Himwan/P.Sri. 
 

 

 
Whether the order is speaking 	:  Yes
 
Whether the order is reportable	:   Yes/No