Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Patrick Kiro vs State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 362 of 2021
Mr. Patrick Kiro .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Department of Human Resource & Education, through its Director,
Ranchi.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega.
4. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
..... ..... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : None
For the Resp.State : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-VI
For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
-----
7 / 08.02.2022 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated
calls. Learned counsel, representing the State Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-
VI, and Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Accountant
General are present.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court after 15 long years
seeking writ of mandamus for a direction upon the respondents to pay arrears
of differences of salaries from the date of appointment i.e. on 22.01.1982 till
the date of superannuation on 30.6.2006. No reasons have been assigned by the
petitioner for such a long delay in approaching this Court in the entire writ
petition. Admittedly, after a gross delay of about 15 years, the petitioner woke-
up from deep slumber and filed the present writ petition that too for making
payment of arrears of differences of salary from the date of appointment i.e
22.01.1982, which is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such, no
interference is warranted.
3. 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".
4. 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."
5. It also appears from the averments made in the writ petition as
well as from the documents brought on record that earlier this petitioner had
preferred a writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 2315 of 2017 for the same cause of
action, which was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 07.08.2018.
Nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition, which is hopelessly barred
by law of limitation.
6. This writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
