Delhi High Court
Ziauddin Hassan vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 20 November, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20.11.2017
LPA 737/2017
ZIAUDDIN HASSAN ..... Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocates for R-1 & R-2
Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for R-3
Mr. Apoorv Karur and Ms. Isha Mittal, Advocates for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CM No.41830-41831/2017 (Exemption)
1. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of accordingly.
CM No. 41833/2017 (Condonation of Delay)
3. The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeks condonation
of 40 days' delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
4. Notice.
5. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. B.S. Rana, learned counsel accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.3. Mr. Apoorv Kurur, learned counsel accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.4. Counsel fairly do not oppose the
present application.
6. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated in the application,
which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of
40 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
7. The application is disposed of accordingly.
LPA 737/2017 & CM No.41832/2017 (Additional Documents)
8. The present appeal apparently assails an order dated 01.09.2017,
rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.7700/2017, titled 'Ziauddin Hassan vs. University of Delhi & Ors.',
whereby the said writ petition, insofar as, it relates to prayer clause 'a' and
'b' has been rejected.
9. For a proper adjudication of the said impugned order dated
01.09.2017, it would be necessary to extract the prayers sought in the
aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No.7700/2017:-
"The present petition has been filed for the
following prayers:
a. Issue appropriate directions, orders or writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the Respondents
to given all the benefits associated with the
grade to which the Petitioner was entitled to in
2006 at the time of his second upgradation till
the time of his retirement in 2016.
b. Issue appropriate directions, orders or writs in
the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to give differential amount of all
the retirement benefits to the Petitioner in
conformity with the grade to which he was
entitled to at the time of second upgradation.
c. Issue appropriate directions, orders or writs in
the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to give benefits of additional post
of in-charge library as permissible under rules.
d. Issue appropriate directions, orders or writs in
the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to give differential amount of
gratuity money to the Petitioner in accordance
with the rules followed by the Respondents.
e. Issue any other directions, orders or writs which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. The learned Single Judge having taken the same into consideration, as
well as, the pleas urged on behalf of the appellant that the delay was
occasioned on account of his repeated representations to the respondents,
which went unrepresented; came to a conclusion that the same were belated
and resultantly rejected the writ petition qua prayers 'a' and 'b'.
11. However, we observe that, insofar as, prayer clauses 'c' and 'd' are
concerned, the petition is still pending adjudication before a learned Single
Judge of this Court.
12. In the present case, it is an admitted position that prayer clauses 'a'
and 'b' sought relief, which related back to 11 years, prior to the institution
of the said writ petition. It is further observed that there is no cogent
explanation for the delay. The plea urged on behalf of the appellant that the
delay was occasioned on behalf of the repeated representations made by him
to the respondents is not tenable, inasmuch as, repeated representations
cannot entitle a party to agitate a dead and stale claim. It is trite to state that
equity does not aid those who slumber over their rights.
13. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court and hence the present appeal assailing the said order dated 01.09.2017
is accordingly rejected. Pending application also stands disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA, J
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
dn
