Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sukhdev Singh Sarvate vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 13 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 12356 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SUKHDEV SINGH SARVATE S/O SHRI HULKAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BLOCK
COORDINATOR SWACHCHHA BHARAT MISSION,
JANPAD PANCHAYAT BIJADANDI DISTRICT MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER RAJYA JAL
AVAM SWACHCHHTA MISSION B WING 2ND
FLOOR VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE PROGRAMME OFFICER RAJYA JAL AVAM
SWACHCHHTA MISSION B WING 2ND FLOOR
VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE COMMISSIONER JABALPUR JABALPUR
DIVISION (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE COLLECTOR M ANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY-DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 6/15/2023
11:50:29 AM
2
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of order dated
13/11/2014 (Annexure P/4) and order dated 13/02/2015 (Annexure P/6).
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner herein was appointed
on contractual basis against the post of Block Coordinator on the strength of an
agreement dated 03/07/2008. The services of the petitioner were abruptly
terminated vide order dated 13/11/2014. The order dated 13/11/2014 was
assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by
the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13/02/2015. The petitioner was not
aware about passing of the order as the same came in the knowledge of the
petitioner in the month of February, 2021.
3. Learned counsel contends that the order of termination was non est
and could not have been passed as the petitioner was not extended any
opportunity of hearing and therefore there was flagrant violation of principle of
natural justice. Learned counsel further contends that even the appellate
authority was not competent to deal with the petitioner's appeal and
accordingly, the order passed by the appellate authority was also nullity.
Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned orders deserve quashement.
4. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nishchal Mishra Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. in WP No.17884/2021 and in the case
of Abdul Bahav Mansoori Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. in
WP No.1327/2023.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the present
petition is grossly misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner has made a futile
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 6/15/2023
11:50:29 AM
attempt to revive a stale cause inasmuch as the petitioner's services were
terminated way back vide order dated 13/11/2014 and the petitioner has made
an effort to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition in the
month of May, 2021. There is complete failure on the part of the petitioner to
explain this inordinate delay of approximate 9 years, and thus on this count
alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. It is further contended by the counsel that moreover the contractual
appointment did not confer any right in favour of the petitioner and the
conditions of employment were governed by the agreement and after
termination of services, the petitioner can not claim any right as regards the post
in question or even can not seek appointment as a matter of right, thus, the
petition deserves to the dismissed.
7. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
8. It is evident from the order of termination dated 13/11/2014
(Annexure P/4) that the contractual appointment of the petitioner was terminated
by the then Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandla. The said order
dated 13/11/2014 was challenged by the petitioner himself by filing an appeal.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide an order
13/02/2015 (Annexure P/6). The petitioner has not explained in the entire
petition that as to why the petitioner did not make any effort to inquire about the
status of the appeal preferred by him assailing the order dated 13/11/2014. The
entire writ petition is conspicuously silent as regards the effort which the
petitioner was required to make to ascertain the status of the appeal preferred
by the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the petitioner is unexplained. Even
paragraph 4 of the petition, is casually drafted and there is no satisfactory
explanation as regards delay which has occasioned in filing the petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 6/15/2023
11:50:29 AM
inasmuch as the orders of 2014 and 2015 are being assailed in 2023, therefore,
in absence of any explanation, stale claim can not be revived.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.10293/2019
(Bholeram Lodhi Vs. Union of India and Others) has held:-
"T h e maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas
subvenit" (Equity assists the vigilant and not those who sleep on their
rights), aims to discourage attempt to revive stale claims. By efflux of
time reluctance weighs more than interference. More particularly, in
the cases pertaining to employment where a litigant is out of job and
his livelihood is at stake, still sits over his rights without justifiable
reason, the Courts tend to get reluctant in entertaining stale claims of
re-employment. Moreover, by encouraging such litigation the
employer cannot be saddled with liability to accommodate employee
particularly when employer having assured that the terminated
employee has accepted his termination in absence of further
challenge, grant employment to other suitable candidate. Therefore,
during this long passage of time, the employer alters its position to
his detriment and therefore, cannot be expected to confront litigation
after prolong and inordinate delay of 4-5 years."
11 . Even the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India and Others Vs. Jyotish Chandra Biswas reported in
2000 (6) SCC 562 has held as under:-
"6. The order terminating the services of the respondent was
passed on 28-1-1969. The writ petition was filed challenging the said order
o n 25-3-1975, almost after a period of six years. There was no
explanation in the writ petition whatsoever for this inordinate delay. The
respondent sought for his re-employment in the Corporation by his letter
dated 9-1-1974 almost after a period of five years from the date of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 6/15/2023
11:50:29 AM
termination of his services.
......................................................................................................Wh
en there was no explanation whatsoever given by the respondent in the
writ petition for delay of about six years, the learned Single Judge was
right in saying so and dismissing it. When the ground that the respondent
was deprived of a right to appeal was not taken before the learned Single
Judge either in the writ petition or in arguments, the Division Bench was
not right and justified in saying that the learned Single Judge did not assign
any reason whatsoever in support of his judgment in this regard. We fail
to understand how such a non-existing ground could be considered by the
learned Single Judge. "
12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not inclined to entertain
the present petition, moreover, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for
petitioner are distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the present case the
petitioner is apparently guilty of lax handling of the matter as the petitioner was
sleeping over his rights for a period of more than 8 years and no right is
accrued in favour of the petitioner to claim the contractual appointment.
13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 6/15/2023
11:50:29 AM
