Ransheebhai Jivabhai Bhaan vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 1602 Guj

     C/LPA/172/2022                             ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 172 of 2022

          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15371 of 2021

==========================================================
                      RANSHEEBHAI JIVABHAI BHAAN
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 11/02/2022

                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 14.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 15371 of 2021, the original petitioner has preferred this intra-court appeal.

2. Heard Mr. Jigar Gadhavi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader on advance copy for the respondent - State.

3. The following facts emerge for consideration by this Court in the present appeal.

C/LPA/172/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022

3.1 The appellant - original petitioner was appointed as Beat Guard (Vanpal Sahayak) in the Kanjeta Range in Baria Forest Department and was posted at Village - Tokarva by an order dated 03.07.2009. The appellant was on a fix pay on contract basis. The record indicates that after joining the services as Beat Guard (Vanpal Sahayak), some irregularities were found about the conduct of the appellant. For which, show cause notice dated 24.02.2010 came to be issued and another notice dated 24.02.2011 also was issued to the appellant. Suffice it to note that by an order dated 06.05.2012 after hearing the appellant - petitioner, the services of the appellant came to be terminated. Being aggrieved by the same, the said order was passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2012. Against which, the further appeal was filed before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Gandhinagar, which culminated into an order dated 22.03.2013. After such facts finding authorities, confirming the order of termination. It appears that the appellant refer his grievance to the Visama, a 'Permanent Lok Adalat' of this Court, which did not materialize. The appellant thereafter preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 15371 of 2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed as under :-

"(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/ or any writ of certiorari and/ or any other writ in the nature of mandamus and / or certiorari quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Baria dated 06.05.2012 passed in MHK/3/b/2226-29/year 2012-2013 and the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest dated 08.08.2012 passed in

C/LPA/172/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022

MHK/DPE/3/b/5452-53/2012-13 as well as the order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 22.03.2013 passed in KhTS/appeal/86/31-7/b/3824-26/2012-13 and further be pleased to pass the necessary order directing reinstatement of the petitioner to the service with back wages / salary and granting him all the service benefits including seniority as well as other monetary and other consequential benefits with interest.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Baria dated 06.05.2012 passed in MHK/3/b/2226-29/year 2012-2013 and the order and the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest dated 08.08.2012 passed in MHK/DPE/3/b/5452-53/2012-13 as well as the order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 22.03.2013 passed in KhTS/appeal/86/31-7/b/3824-26/2012-13 and further be pleased to pass the necessary order to take the petitioner back to service subject to the final outcome of the petition."

4. Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the appellant contended that if the appeal is entertained, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the Government as the appellant is ready and willing to forgo the back wages. It was also contended that this Court may entertain the appeal even after without considering the delay as grave injustice shall be caused to the appellant.

5. The learned Single Judge having examined the matter has also taken note of the fact that the termination order dated 06.05.2012 confirmed by the Conservator of Forest in appeal on 08.08.2012 and by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 23.02.2013. The record also indicates that the proceedings before the Visama 'Permanent Lok Adalat' of this Court on 02.07.2014 as observed by the learned Single Judge, the representation

C/LPA/172/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022

came to be filed on 22.04.2018 which came to be rejected on 10.07.2020. Merely filing of the representation would not extent the unexplained delay and latches on the part of the appellant. The conduct of the appellant clearly exhibits that since 2012, the appellant was well aware about the order of termination which is unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate Authorities, which also ended on 03.02.2013. The learned Single Judge has observed thus :

"Having regard to the fact that original order of termination is of thev year 2012 and whereas order in appeal and order in Second Appeal was of the year 2012 and the year 2013, the present petition challenging the same after almost a period of 8-9 years, would not be entertained by this Court only on the ground that the petition is barred by gross delay and latches.

It is well settled proposition of law that while litigant may have a good case on merits but then the very fact that the litigant has come to the Court after a gross delay would ensure that the Court would not take up the case on its merits. It is well settled principle that litigant cannot be permitted to come to the Court of law for redressal of his grievance at any time which he thinks it appropriate. In the instant case the order is of termination and whereas under normal circumstance the employee is expected to approach the Court as early as possible and since the petitioner having approached this Court after approximately 8-9 years this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is barred by gross and unexplained delay and therefore does not deserve to be entertained. Hence the same is rejected in limine."

6. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Only on the ground that the appellant is ready and willing to forgo the back wages, the unexplained delay can not be ignored. Even the second limb of argument put forward by the learned advocate for the appellant, does not deserve any merit as

C/LPA/172/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022

there are three concurrent findings of fact against the appellant and the scope of judicial review being very limited, we do not find it appropriate to interfere after gross delay of almost decade by now. The present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. The present appeal is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(R.M.CHHAYA,J)

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Salim/