Allahabad High Court
Gyan Prakash Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Sugar ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18158
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3069 of 2025
Petitioner :- Gyan Prakash Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Sugar Industry And Cane Devlopment Department ) Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandhya Devi,Neha Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Ms. Sandhya Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Meena Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 4 and Sri Jaiyesh Bhoosreddy, learned counsel for opposite parties No.5.
2. Ms. Meena Singh, learned Standing Counsel has shown instruction dated 19.03.2025 preferred by the District Cane Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri along with some orders, which are taken on record.
3. As per aforesaid instructions, the petitioner being a seasonal clerk may not be paid leave encashment for 300 days in a same manner, such payment is given to the permanent and temporary staff in view of the regulation 108 of the U.P. Cooperative Cane Societies Regulation, 1975. Sri Jaiyesh Bhoosreddy, counsel for opposite party No.5 has submitted with vehemence showing regulation 108 of Regulation 1975, whereby the seasonal staff has been excluded to get the payment of leave encashment for 300 days. Such seasonal staffs as per Schedule III, serial No.4 can be given leave encashment only for 150 days. It has been informed by learned counsel for opposite parties that the petitioner, who retired from the post of Seasonal Clerk has been paid leave encashment for 150 days. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner in his writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party No.5 has stated that since this is a case wherein as per the legal prescription, the petitioner has been paid leave encashment for 150 days and he may not be paid leave encashment for 300 days, therefore, he has requested that this petition may be decided at the admission stage as he will not be filing any counter affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.5 has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgement and order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Writ A No. 5351 of 2023 referring paras 21 & 22 thereof whereby the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court have been considered which held that when an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with the direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgement of a jural relationship" to give rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 has stated that even if pursuant to the order being passed by this Court, the representation has been decided and rejected, which may not be treated as fresh cause of action with effect from the date the representation has been rejected, the issue of limitation or delay and latches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance of the Court's direction. Paras 21 & 22 read as under:
"21. Similarly Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. K. Sarkar has held as under:
"14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C. Jacob vs Director of Geology and Mining & Anr - 2009 (10) SCC 115 :
"The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any `decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to `consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to `consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored."
15. When a belated representation in regard to a `stale' or `dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the `dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."
(emphasis by Court)
22. Likewise Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajmati Singh has held under:
"19. Close to the facts of this case, in "C. Jacob versus Director of Geology and Mining And Other" (2008) 10 SCC 115, this Court, having found that the employee suddenly brought up a challenge to the order of termination of his services after 20 years and claimed all consequential benefits, held that the relief sought for was inadmissible. The legal position in this regard was laid out in the following terms:
"10. Every representation of the Government for relief, may not be applied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.
11. When a decision is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgement of a jural relationship" to give rise to a fresh cause of action."
6. Learned counsel for opposite party No.5 has also placed reliance of the judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5027 of 2024; Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, referring paras 9 & 11, whereby the aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Apex Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the specific mandate of regulation 108 of Regulation 1975, serial No.4 of Schedule III as well as law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, therefore, I do not find any reason to keep this petition pending calling upon counter affidavit from the opposite parties.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.
9. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.4.2025
Reena/-
(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)
