Delhi High Court
Manohar Singh vs Ntpc Limited on 16 April, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.5697/2007
% 16th April, 2015
MANOHAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
Versus
NTPC LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.K. Taneja, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate and
Ms. Divyangana Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 15.1.2015.
No one appears for the petitioner on two calls. One call was made in the pre-
lunch session and another call was made post lunch. It is 2.45 P.M.
2. By this writ petition filed on 30.7.2007, petitioner claims a
particular pay scale for the period from 28.1.1982 to 31.3.1984 i.e of a
period of around 23 years prior to filing of the writ petition.
3. No doubt, petitioner has been making repeated representations
but repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation. In fact,
even the first representation was made by the petitioner in the year 1988 i.e
after the period of limitation and the second representation was made much
later thereafter on 6.2.1996. Petitioner in para 12 of the writ petition himself
states that respondent wrongly rejected the representation vide its order
dated 1.3.1996. Therefore, as on 1.3.1996 the cause of action had accrued in
favour of the petitioner and repeated representations thereafter do not help
the petitioner in approaching the court with delay. The Supreme Court
recently in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty
(2011) 3 SCC 436 has held that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not
apply to writ petitions, but, the principle of limitation squarely applies and
consequently a case filed beyond the period of limitation has to be dismissed
by applying the doctrine of delay and laches. Relevant paras of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra)
read as under:-
"52. In the very first appeal, the respondent filed Writ Petition on
11-11-2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6-10-1989
w.e.f. 1-1-1986 without furnishing any explanation for such
inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to
dismiss the Suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even
though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no plea to
raise the issue of limitation even at appellate stage because in some
of the cases it may go to the root of the matter. (See Lachhmi Sewak
Sahu v. Ram Rup Sahu: AIR 1994 PC 24 and Kamlesh
Babu v. Lajpat Rai Sharma: (2008) 12 SCC 577.)
53. Needless to say that Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ
jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on
public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ
petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and
laches. In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give
rise to a recurring cause of action. In such an eventuality, the petition
may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the court
may refuse to grant relief for the initial period in case of an
unexplained and inordinate delay. In the instant case, the Respondent
claimed the relief from 1-1-1986 by filing a petition on 11-11-2005
but the High Court for some unexplained reason granted the relief
w.e.f. 1-6-1984, though even the Notification dated 6-10-1989 makes
it applicable w.e.f. 1-1-1986.
54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition
should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the
petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief
granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a
proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up
from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases
where some diligent person had approached the Court within a
reasonable time. (See Rup Diamonds v. Union of India: (1989) 2
SCC 356, State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya: (1996) 6 SCC 267
and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana: (1997) 6 SCC 538.)"
(underlining added)
4. In fact, it is noted that besides the request of the petitioner
having been rejected way back on 1.3.1996, petitioner himself retired in the
year 2003 and he did not even file the case within the limitation period from
the date of his retirement.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is clearly barred by the
doctrine of delay and laches, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
APRIL 16, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
