Delhi High Court
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd And ... vs Narendra Kumar N on 21 December, 2016
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11946/2016
Date of decision: 21st December, 2016
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD AND ANR. .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sarfaraz Khan and Mr. Saiful Islam,
Advocates.
Versus
NARENDRA KUMAR N ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel appearing for the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. has
drawn our attention to order dated 25th May, 2016 passed in W.P. (C) No.
4757/2016, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. Vs. T.R.K.R. Kumhar
and Ors. and submits that an order of remand was passed for a fresh decision in the
original application.
2. We are afraid and would record that there are distinct and striking
dissimilarities and the argument fails to notice the distinguishing factors in the two
cases. In T.R.K.R Kumhar (supra), the order of the Tribunal dated 5th May, 2014
was made subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No. 6539/2015, which was
disposed of vide order dated 10th July, 2015, permitting the petitioner to file a
review application. The review application was thereafter filed and was
dismissed on the ground that it was beyond the scope and ambit of power of review.
In these circumstances and with the consent of the respondent-employee, vide order
dated 25th May, 2016, the order dated 5th May, 2014 passed by the Tribunal was set
aside for a fresh decision in the OA.
3. The facts of the present case are different. A consent order dated 6th
November, 2012 was passed in OA No. 880/2012, filed by Narender Kumar, the
respondent herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the
respondent would be entitled to the relief as prayed for in the Original Application
which included the claim for interest @ 12% on the delayed payment. In view of
the said statement, the OA was dismissed, but with a direction that the petitioner
would ensure that all the benefits arising out of the decision were released to the
respondent within a period of one month. The petitioner on their own had stated
that the respondent- Narender Kumar would be entitled to interest.
4. The petitioner had thereafter filed a review application in the year 2013,
stating that their counsel had wrongly made a statement qua payment of interest.
On the other aspects, including the entitlement to monthly compensation of
Rs.3,000/- from 1st April, 1999 to 30th June, 1999 and then with effect from 3rd
January, 2000 to 1st January, 2005, the petitioner had accepted the decision dated 6th
November, 2012.
5. The review application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 5th
May, 2014.
6. The present writ petition was filed on 6th December, 2016, after a delay of
nearly two and a half years from the order dated 5th May, 2014. The orders dated
5th May,2014 and 6th November,2012 are challenged in the present writ petition.
The only explanation and reason given for the delay is to be found in paragraph 17
at page 21 of the writ petition. This paragraph states that the delay in filing the
present petition was caused due to inadvertence. This cause and reason, in our
opinion, is not a satisfactory or good reason to explain or overlook the delay and
laches stretching over a period of nearly 900 days. The respondent, in the present
case, has been waiting for a long time for payment of amount, which was
admittedly due and payable. He has also claimed interest on account of the delay in
payment. It is apparent that the petitioner has been grossly negligent and derelict in
challenging the orders.
7. Keeping in view the period of delay and also the feeble explanation given by
the petitioner, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present writ petition and the
same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
DECEMBER 21, 2016/NA
