Gujarat High Court
Maheshkumar Hiralal Nai vs State Of Gujarat on 28 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5389/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
5389 of 2024
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 30384 of 2024
=============================================
MAHESHKUMAR HIRALAL NAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANISH J JAPEE(11295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Respondent(s) No.
10,11,12,13,4,5,6,7,8,9
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 28/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of
delay of 2446 days in filing the captioned appeal.
2. It is the case of the applicant that he was the co-
petitioner of the petitioners of the writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.8368 of 2015, which was rejected, at the
relevant time by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and
order dated 08.01.2018 and an appeal was filed by such
original petitioners, which was allowed by this Court on
17.10.2024 and when the applicant came to know about such
decision, he has filed the present appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
when the other petitioners have been extended the benefit by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5389/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
the Division Bench pertaining to the grant of arrears relating to
the regularization of adhoc period spent by such petitioners,
after they were appointed on compassionate basis. It is, thus,
submitted that the applicant, who is the original petitioner
No.10 may be extended the similar relief and he has, on
instructions, further submitted that the applicant is ready and
willing to forego the arrears for the intervening period. Thus, it
is urged that the delay of 2446 days may be condoned.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has vehemently
opposed the present application, and has submitted that the
applicant has filed the present application after a huge delay of
more than 2000 days and granting such application may
financially impact on the State Government. She has further
submitted that such delay may not be condoned since it will
have cascading effect and all the employees in which the
matter has become final and they have not claimed the
benefit, would also rush to this Court by filing a writ petition.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
6. It is an established fact that the present applicant -
Maheshkumar Hiralal Nai, was the petitioner No.10 of the writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.8368 of 2015. By the
judgment and order dated 08.01.2018, the learned Single
Judge rejected the writ petition. Against the said judgment and
order, the original petitioners filed the Letters Patent Appeal
No.774 of 2019, challenging the judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge. It is pertinent to note that when such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5389/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
appeal was filed by the other petitioners, the present
applicant, who was arraigned as petitioner No.10, got himself
deleted from the array of the parties and the Division Bench
vide order dated 30.08.2022 deleted the present applicant
from the array of the parties as he was made respondent in the
Letters Patent Appeal filed by the co-petitioners. Since the
present applicant did not file any Letters Patent Appeal
challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench is
incorporated as under : -
"Mr.Maulik Soni for Mr.N.K. Majmudar, learned
advocate for the appellant request for deletion of
respondent No.5, who was original petitioner No.10
and has not challenged the decision of the learned
Single Judge along with the present appellants.
Permission as prayed for is granted.
Mr.Maulik Soni for the Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate
for the appellant as well as Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned
advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 requests for
time.
Stand over to 28.9.2022."
7. After the co-petitioners were succeeded in the Letters
Patent Appeal, the present applicant came out of his slumber
and filed the Letters Patent Appeal after huge delay of 2446
days. Thus, the applicant was not vigilant enough in pursuing
his cause/ remedy and got himself deleted from the array of
parties in Letters Patent Appeal. Since he realized that the co-
petitioners got the similar benefit, he approached this Court
after almost 2500 days for claiming the similar relief. Thus, he
was a fence sitter, by not filing any Letters Patent Appeal and
on the contrary, he got his name deleted from the Letters
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5389/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
Patent Appeal and after the other petitioners are granted
benefit, he has approached this Court.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Balu Vs. State of
Kerala, 2009 (2) SCC 479, while considering the case of the
employees claiming similar relief granted to their colleagues
and the aspect of delay has observed thus:
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay
defeats equity". Government Order was issued on
15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application
questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after
the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State
of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they
impleaded themselves as party respondents. 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. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any
direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to
appoint the appellants at this stage."
9. The Supreme Court has held that reliefs prayed for may
be denied to a litigant 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.
Adopting the same analogy, the applicant cannot be extended
the similar relief, even if he was a co-petitioner in wake of
subsequent conduct. The only reason assigned explaining the
enormous delay is realization of relief granted to other
petitioners who were vigilant enough to pursue their cause.
Allowing the present application, at this stage by condoning a
huge period of almost 2500 days for grant of same relief,
which has been extended to other employees /
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5389/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
original petitioners, will tend to give rise to fresh cause of
action and open a pandara box. As contended by learned AGP,
there would be other employees, who would come forward
even after finalization of the lis. Thus, we are not inclined to
condone the huge delay.
10. On the afore-noted facts, the civil application is rejected.
11. In view of the disposal of the present application,
F/Letters Patent Appeal does not survives and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
MAHESH/33
