Delhi High Court
Shri Rohit Sehgal vs Air India Limited on 27 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5580/2015
% 27th May, 2015
SHRI ROHIT SEHGAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nittin Mittal, Adv.
versus
AIR INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna
B.Dhingra and Ms. Bhawna Dhami,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner by this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, effectively challenges the letter of termination of
employment dated 26.2.2004 ie passed about 11 years back.
2. A similar and subsequent letter dated 20.4.2015 no doubt has been
issued by the respondent, but, that will not mean that a fresh cause of action
will arise, because, termination order will still remain of the year 2004.
WP(C) 5580/2015 Page 1 of 3
3. The Supreme Court recently in the judgment in the case State of
Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 has held that
though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ petitions, however
the principle of limitation does apply to writ petitions, and, writ petitions
which are filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be entertained. The
relevant paras of this judgment are paras 52 to 54 and which read as under:
"Delay/Laches
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.
WP(C) 5580/2015 Page 2 of 3
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 view of the above, this writ petition is clearly barred by the
principle of limitation and the application of the doctrine of delay and
laches.
5. Dismissed.
MAY 27, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
