Sangita Haldar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3357 Jhar

                                            1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No. 3108 of 2022
    Sangita Haldar                               .... .... Petitioner
                             Versus
    1.    The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources
          Development Department, Ranchi.
    2.    The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development
          Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
    3.    The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources
          Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
    4.    The District Superintendent of Education, District Collectoriate,
          Gumla.
    5.    The District Education Officer, District Collectoriate, Gumla.
    6.    The Secretary, Sahid Herman Rasschaert High School, Kutungia,
          Gumla.
                                                 .... ...          Respondents
                             ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III

-----

2/ 24.08.2022 This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to release the arrears of salary of the husband of petitioner from March, 2004 to July 2021, which has been withheld by the respondents, though he was a regular teacher working since 3.3.1992 and unfortunately died on 4.6.2022 and he was due to retire in the month of August, 2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner was appointed as Science Teacher in Sahid Herman Rasschaert High School, Kutungia, Gumla on 3.3.1992. Thereafter the husband of the petitioner continued to discharge his duties and was getting salary till February, 2004. Learned counsel submits that without any notice or information, salary of husband of the petitioner was stopped from March, 2004, though he approached the respondents, but no heed was paid. Learned counsel further submits that unfortunately, husband of petitioner died on 4.6.2022 and thereafter, the petitioner submitted her representation on 23.6.2022 for redressal of her grievances. Having no option left, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel representing the State vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that this writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the petitioner has approached this Court after seventeen long years from the date of withholding of salary of husband of the

petitioner. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and submits that delay of 17 years remain unexplained and as such, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.

4. Be that as it may, after having rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is in full agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent State that the writ petition in service matters is not maintainable after a long delay. Admittedly, after a gross delay of about 17 years, the petitioner woke-up from deep slumber and filed the present writ petition, which is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such, no interference is warranted.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1979, has observed that "for the first time in September, 1970 the appellant invoked the extra- ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging the legality of an order dated 21.12.1966. The writ petition was filed after a gross delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing it summarily".

6. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, relying upon various judgments, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, while dealing with the matter of delay and laches in approaching the Court, has observed in relevant paragraphs, which read as under:-

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at this own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,

"procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and cause injury to the lis."

7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I find no merit in the instant writ application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) R.Kr.