V.K. Dogra vs Nehru Memorial Museum & Library & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1771 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8086/2009

                                      Date of Decision : 30.04.2009

V.K. Dogra                                              ......Petitioner
                                      Through : Nemo

                                  Versus

Nehru Memorial Museum & Library & Anr.
                                                  ...... Respondents
                                      Through : Nemo

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?                             NO
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                  NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?                                          NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for

setting aside the impugned orders dated 2nd July, 2008 and 5th

July, 2002 and has further prayed that the petitioner be granted

a pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f 1st January, 1986 and Rs.

5500-9000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and then financial

upgradation in the non-hierarchy pay scale of Rs.8000-13500

and ACP Scheme w.e.f. 1st January, 2000 with an interest @18%

per annum.

2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

was employed with the respondent as a Technical Assistant

(Preservation) in the year 1980 in the pay scale of Rs.425-500. It

is alleged by the petitioner that the Ministry of Human Resources

Development, Government of India had proposed the merger of

posts of Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 with

Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 in the

Department of Culture. It is alleged that although the

recommendation was accepted by the Government of India by

framing the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 but

it did not give the requisite scale of Rs.1640-2900 in lieu of pre

revised scale of Rs. 425-700, however, the same scale was not

given to the petitioner by the respondents/GOI, and accordingly,

the present writ petition has been filed.

3. So far as the cause of action is concerned, a reference is

made to the letter dated 2nd July, 2008 as the basis coming to

the Court. By the said letter dated 2nd July, 2008 a reference is

made to the representation dated 25th April, 2008 addressing the

Chairman, Executive Council, Nehru Memorial Museum &

Library regarding upgradation of his pay scale and it has been

observed that the Department of Culture vide their letter dated

5th July, 2002 has already taken a stand that there appears to be

no justification for accepting the request. It is on the basis of

these two letters that the present writ petition has been filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the record. I have also gone through the judgment cited

by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In case titled S.S.

Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) 4 SCC 582.

5. At the outset, I must state that in nutshell the grievance of

the petitioner is the revision of his pay scale for the post of Senior

Technical Assistant (Preservation) w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 and

the subsequent Pay Commission in terms of the Fourth Pay

Commission and Fifth Pay Commission recommendation dated

1st January, 1996 on the ground that though the Department of

Culture had recommended upgradation of the scale of the post of

the petitioner yet the same was not accepted by the respondents.

6. It may be pertinent here to mention that the petitioner has

already superannuated and the prayer of the petitioner for

seeking revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 and 1st

January, 1996 in terms of Fourth and Fifth Pay Commission is

ex-facie barred by inordinate delay and latches. The petitioner

is trying to raise a stale claim. The petitioner is trying to justify

the delay by stating that he had made a representation which

was rejected on 2nd July, 2008, and therefore, the period of

limitation would start from 3rd July, 2008. I do not agree with

the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

period of limitation starts from 3rd July, 2008. The petitioner

was aware while he was in service that he is not being given

enhanced pay scale as was prayed by him, therefore, he ought to

have approached the Court at the earliest possible occasion

which he did not do either in 1986 or even in 1996. Now the

petitioner has retired and his representation in fact has been

rejected on 2nd July, 2002 even if the period of limitation

reckoned from 2nd July, 2002, it is inordinately delayed, merely

by making repeated representation the respondents were not

under obligation to entertain such representations and intimate

the outcome of the matter to the party concern much less the

party can take advantage of these letters so as to base of his

cause of action on the basis of these letters.

7. The judgment in case of S.S. Rathore (supra) which has

been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with a

suit for declaration against the order of dismissal from service

wherein it has been held that Article 58 is not applicable. It is

settled legal position that in matters of writs though there is no

limitation but there is a concept of inordinate delay and latches

which may bar the remedy sought by an individual.

8. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, I am of the

considered opinion that the writ petition of the petitioner is

barred by inordinate delay and latches, and accordingly, the

same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 30, 2009 KP