Delhi High Court
Arvind Kumar Chaubey And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 August, 2021
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8733/2021 & CM APPL. 27212/2021
ARVIND KUMAR CHAUBEY AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava,
Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak,
Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 23rd August, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking implementation of the
directions stipulated in the Order dated 14th March, 1978 issued by
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India for
fixation of pay of the petitioners from the date of approval of promotion for
the next higher grade i.e. the date of declaration of the result for the next
higher grade pay. Petitioners also seek quashing of the communication dated
28th September, 2016 vide which the Petitioners were held disentitled from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:25.08.2021
14:06:29
the benefit of ACP/MACP and the benefit of next pay grade from the date of
reporting for training.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue in the present
writ petition is that the petitioner's pay as HC/RM was fixed by the
department w.e.f. 10th November, 1994 i.e., date of posting to the higher
grade instead of 14th June, 1993 i.e. day of joining the training as per
movement order. It is his submission that this question of law has been
settled by this Court vide judgment dated 07th December 2015, pronounced
in W.P.(C) 5799/2015 titled K. Bangaru Naidu and Ors. vs. Ministry of
Home Affairs and Anr.
4. Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Advocate, who appears on
advance notice for Union of India, states that the present writ petition is
barred by delay and laches as the petitioners have been granted first and
second ACP many years ago.
5. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the cause of
action to file the present writ petition arose on 14th June, 1993 i.e. twenty
eight years ago. Further, the judgment in W.P.(C) 5799/2015 relied upon by
the petitioners, had been passed on 07th December, 2015 i.e., six years ago.
Also the representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 29th
September, 2016 i.e., nearly five years ago. Consequently, this Court is of
the view that the present writ petition is barred by delay and laches. In fact,
the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Gopal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 101
has held that delay defeats equity and law favours the vigilant and not the
indolent. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:25.08.2021
14:06:29
"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to
proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India,
nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable
lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate
laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts
naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary
jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and
allowed illegalities to fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to
barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and
vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere
opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there
are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be
enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:
" 17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats
equity" . ...It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner
approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed
for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches
irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the
other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment."
17. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India this Court
while considering the claim of candidates who, despite being
higher in merit, exercised their right to parity much after those
who were though lower in merit but were diligently agitating their
rights, this Court observed that:
" 27. ...It becomes an obligation to take into consideration
the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition
or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a
matter of great significance that at one point of time equity
that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance
and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time."
6. It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that repeated
representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file the
writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending
application is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:25.08.2021
14:06:29
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 23, 2021
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:25.08.2021
14:06:29
