Surendra Gour vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4162 MP

                                           1
                     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          W.P. No.13121/2021
                           (Surendra Gour vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 11.08.2021

      Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for

the respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to pay the petitioner the claim of petitioner's father as minimum of the pay of the classified post as per graded pay scale from the date of his classification till his death i.e. 20.01.2014 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat.

(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be given to the petitioner."

An objection has been taken at the initial stage by the

respondent/State counsel that the petition is highly belated and has been

filed by the legal representatives of the deceased employee, who worked

in the respondent department. It is submitted that during the entire

service period he has not claimed any benefits with respect to his

classification order. He passed away on 20.01.2014 and the petition has

been filed by his son on 22.07.2021 i.e. after more than seven years of his

death. It is submitted that the petition clearly suffers from delay and

latches and if such reliefs are permitted by this Court then the same will

open flood gates as the family members of legal representatives of the

deceased employees who have not received the benefits or have not

claimed the benefits during the life time will rushed to the court claiming

the aforesaid reliefs regarding grant of benefits of minimum pay scale.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not disputed that

the petitioner was a classified employee vide order dated 4.1.2005

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.13121/2021 (Surendra Gour vs. State of M.P.)

wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.38. Upto to his

death i.e. on 20.01.2014 he remained classified employee and his

classification order has never been cancelled. It is submitted that the

petitioner is entitled to receive the retiral claims of the petitioner and the

service benefits for which a direction was being issued by the department

vide Annexure P/4 dated 5.8.2014. Once the petitioner was classified by

the department and his classification order was never cancelled then he is

entitled to get the benefits of a classified employee in terms of the

directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram

Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwani Rai as reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 . The

petitioner being a legal representative is duly entitled to claim the

aforesaid benefits. The delay in filing the petition is being explained by

him in para No.4. He has further relied upon a judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav vs Union of

India, (1985) 2 SCC 648 that if the benefits of the minimum pay scale

even granted to those employees who have not approached the Courts

during the life time they need not to be at a comparative disadvantage to

those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they

are entitled to similar treatment. It is submitted that the judgment passed

by the Supreme Court regarding classified employee is a judgment in rem

and the State authorities were directed by the Supreme Court to

implement to all similarly situated employees. In such circumstances, the

benefits of classified employees should have been extended by the

department to the petitioner. He has further relied upon a judgment

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.13121/2021 (Surendra Gour vs. State of M.P.)

passed by the Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Bhanrale v. Union of

India & Ors. (1996) Scale (5693) and has submitted that being a

recurring cause of action the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as

claimed for being the legal representative of deceased employee.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the record it is not disputed that the petitioner's

father was in the service of the respondent department and was classified

on the post of Gangman vide order dated 2.3.2004. It is mentioned in the

petition that his classification order was never cancelled. But the fact

remains that the petitioner expired in January 2014 and during the entire

lifetime no efforts were made by him which could be shown by the father

of the petitioner that he has ever tried to claim the benefits of

classification from the department. After a period of more than seven

years the writ petition has been filed on 22.07.2021 before this Court by

his son claiming the aforesaid benefits despite of the fact that on dated

5.8.201 (Annexure P/4) the department has asked him to take all the

benefits. But he kept mum and slept over for a considerable period. The

petition clearly suffers from delay and latches.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in the case of State of

Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 has

considered the aspect of sleeping litigant and has held as under:-

"54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time."

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.13121/2021 (Surendra Gour vs. State of M.P.)

Further in W.P. No. 5409/2012 (Jageshwar Kurmi (Patel) Vs. State

of M.P. & Others) dated 30.08.2017 the theory of sleeping litigants was

followed and they were not found entitled to any benefits. The relevant

para reads as under:-

"10. In this view of the matter, the order passed in Kallu Prasad Patel cannot be a reason for ignoring the delay in raising eyebrows against the selection of 2001. I am unable to persuade myself with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the teeth of order passed in WP. No.1782/07 dated 19-08-2011, the application for condonation of delay could not have been dismissed and it was obligatory on the part of learned Collector to decide the revision on merits. The question of considering the merits of the case would arise only when delay is condoned. This is trite law that if the delay is not condoned, the Court cannot decide the matter on merits. No doubt, the application for condonation of delay cannot be rejected on technical grounds. However, it is equally settled that the delay cannot be condoned for a sleeping litigant otherwise the delay will unsettle the settled things which will not be in the interest of justice. In the peculiar facts of this case, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be pressed into service."

If such practices are permitted then the Courts will be flooded with

petitions filed by the legal representatives claiming the classification

benefits which the employee could not claim during his lifetime. The

aforesaid will amount to opening of a pandora box. In such

circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The petition

clearly suffers from delay and latches and is hereby dismissed on the

ground of delay and latches.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2021.08.16 12:20:22

-07'00'