Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Hp And Others on 29 October, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 12221 of 2024
Decided on: 29.10.2024
Ramesh Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and
the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of
Grant-in-Aid in favour of the present petitioner at par with the
similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits
alongwith reengagement and take a decision in the light of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2690/2019
titled as Raj Singh and Anr. Vs State of HP, Annexure P-3
without any discrimination."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged by the
School Management Committee of Government Middle School,
Chaplandi, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, as a Drawing Master. His
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
services were dispensed with by the respondents in November, 2020.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
entitled for grant-in-aid for the period he served with the Department
and further he is also entitled for the relief of re-engagement.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
having carefully gone through the averments made in the writ
petition as also the documents appended therewith, this Court is of
the Considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable as it
is hit by delay and laches. Admittedly, the petitioner was disengaged
in the month of November, 2020. This writ petition has been filed in
this Court on 28.10.2024. Even if this Court was to order the benefit
of grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner, the monetary benefits in
terms of the settled law are to be restricted up to three years
preceding the date of filing of the writ petition, which in the present
case comes as 28th October, 2021. Admittedly, the petitioner was not
in service as on 28.10.2021. Thus, for preceding three years as from
the date of filing of the writ petition, as the petitioner was not in
service, he obviously is not entitled for any relief of grant-in-aid as is
being prayed for.
4. As far as grant-in-aid relating to the earlier period before
is disengagement is concerned, the same also cannot be ordered to
be released as the petitioner is not in service nor this Court can
grant any monetary benefits preceding three years as from the date
of filing of the writ petition in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India (2007) 9
SCC 274 and Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008)
8 Supreme Court Cases 648.
5. In Shiv Dass vs. Union of India (supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to hold that the High Court does not
ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy
because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and
bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised
after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only
hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties.
Hon'ble Supreme Court further went on to hold that even in the case
of pension, the cause of action actually continues from month to
month, however, that cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing
the petition and it would depend upon the fact of each case and if
petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally,
the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be
granted to a reasonable period of about three years.
6. In Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, after
referring to its judgment in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India (supra),
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that normally, a belated service
related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches
where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition. Hon'ble Supreme
Court went on to hold that one of the exceptions to the said rule is
cases relating to a continuing wrong. It further went on to hold that
if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc.
affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of
laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief
of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles
relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply and as a
consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief
relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the
date of filing of the writ petition.
7. As far as the relief of reengagement is concerned, said
relief also in the considered view of this Court is hit by delay and
laches. The petitioner was disengaged in the month of November,
2020. No cogent explanation has been given by him as to why he is
approaching the Court after a gap of four years.
6. In view of above discussion, as this Court is of the
considered view that the reliefs being prayed for the petitioner are hit
by delay and laches, accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
October 29, 2024
(narender)
