Delhi High Court
Balwan Singh vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 17 April, 2017
$~11
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.271/2017 and CM No.14076/2017
% Date of decision : 17th April, 2017
BALWAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Samrendra Kumar and
Mr. Kislay Komal, Advs.
versus
INDIAN INSTTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The appellant assails the order dated 7th February, 2017
passed by the ld. Single Judge dismissing the
W.P.(C)No.887/2017. By way of the writ petition, filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had sought
the relief of ante-dating his selection to the post of Catering
Supervisor as to be w.e.f. 1st September, 1989 instead of 1st
September, 1990 as had been done by the respondent.
2. The impugned order notes that the petitioner's request for
ante-dating the date of selection was first rejected by the
respondent by the order dated 12th June, 2000.
3. It is noted that the petitioner made yet another representation
for the same purpose on the 17th June, 2000 which was also
rejected on 8th of August 2000.
4. The appellant before us continued to make subsequent and
repeated representations which were rejected by the competent
authority of the respondent institute on 9th August, 2001; 5th
September, 2001 and 5th April, 2006. Again by the
communications dated 19th February, 2009, the appellant was
informed by the respondent that his representations stood rejected
and therefore, the matter could not be reconsidered. It appears that
even this did not dissuade the appellant who continued to make
representations on 18th January, 2010 and 19th May, 2015 to the
same effect. Reliance was made in the writ petition on the
rejection of the petitioner's representation on 4th of February 2016
and 15th of March 2016.
5. It was only subsequent thereto that in the year, 2017, the
appellant sought to invoke the extraordinary remedy by way of the
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
setting aside of the rejections and ante-dating the date of his
original selection w.e.f. 1st of September 1989.
6. It cannot be denied that the cause of action, if any, accrued
in favour of the appellant, at best, when the first order of rejection
of the appellant's representation was passed on 12 th June, 2000.
The appellant took no steps for challenging the same by way of any
appropriate legal remedy including the filing of a writ petition.
Instead he was satisfied by making mere representations to the
respondent without anything more. Certainly, the fairness of the
respondent in responding each time to the representation made by
the appellant, cannot cause a fresh cause of action to accrue in
favour of the appellant.
7. The ld. Single Judge has noted the pronouncement of the
Supreme Court in (2011) 3 SCC 436, State of Orissa & Anr. v.
Mamta Mohanty in support of the proposition that the law of
limitation applies to the writ petition. It is trite that undue &
unexplained delay and laches would certainly be held against a
person who invokes the remedy by way of writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Mr. Samrendra Kumar, ld. counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court
reported at (1995) 5 SCC 628, M.R. Gupta v. Union of India to
contend that each time the appellant was paid salary, he became
entitled to invoke his remedy by way of petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
In the present case, the respondent has rejected the
appellant's basic relief as far back as on 12th June, 2000.
9. Ld. counsel for the appellant also places reliance on an order
of the Supreme Court dated 13th of July 2015 passed in
SLP(C)No.14385/2014 regarding a claim for compassionate
appointment, failing which grant of extraordinary pension of the
services of a deceased employee were considered to be paid and
were agreed to be paid by the State of U.P. This order was passed
in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant can claim
no parity with the petitioner therein.
10. We find no infirmity in the finding of the ld. Single Judge
that the petitioner was disentitled to invoke the remedy by way of
the writ petition.
11. We therefore, find no merit in this appeal as well as
application which are hereby dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
ANU MALHOTRA, J
APRIL 17, 2017
aj
