Smt Meera Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8806 MP

                         1                    W.P.No.12468/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 12468 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

SMT    MEERA      NAMDEO    W/O    SHRI
SHAMBUDAYAL NAMDEO, AGED ABOUT 68
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT
TEACHER R/O VILLAGE UDANA TEHSIL PATAN
DISTRICT JABLPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVAM CHHALOTRE - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
       GOVT. OF MADHYA PRADESH EDUCATION
       DEPARTMENT R/O VALLABH BHAWAN
       MANTRALAYA     BHOPAL     (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

2.     THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
       TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS JUGPURA
       POLICE STATION CHARGAWAN DISTRICT
       JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.     THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER
       TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS DISTRICT
       JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.     THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
       SCHOOL     EDUCATION   DEPARTMENT
       DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.     THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BLOCK
       PATAN DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCAT )
                                2                          W.P.No.12468/2023



      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed

the following:

                                  ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue directions to the competent authority, the concerned District Education Officer to consider the case of the petitioner for the claim of 2.4 kramonnati since the date of appointment 30.07.1976 in the light of order passed by this court in the case of Prerna w/o shri Pramod Koranne V/s state of M.P. and others [W.P.No.6773 /2006].

(ii) to issuance of Writ of Mandamus, commanding, the respondents to consider and Decide the representation dated 16.05.2023, (Annexure P/4) submitted by the Petitioner in accordance with law and also pleased to release the benefits of the krammounati to Petitioner, with 12 %Interest; in the interest of Justice.

(iii) That the Respondents may be directed to given the amount of arrears of salary of second kramonnati to the petitioner.

(iv) to Issuance of any writ as fits correct by this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to direct the concern authority to pay the arears of salary of the 2nd Karammounati of the Petitioner, in the

interest of Justice; (e) Any other suitable relief/ direction/ order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of the present case."

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had become entitled for grant of second kramonnati in the year 2000 but he was granted second kramonnati w.e.f. 01.08.2003 and, therefore this petition has been filed seeking direction for grant of second kramonnati from the year 2000.

3. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to argue on the question of delay and latches.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that where the subject matter is a recurring cause of action, then the question of delay and latches may not arise. It is further submitted that the representation is still pending and the respondents may be directed to decide the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that he was entitled for second kramonnati from the year 2000 but he was granted second kramonnati w.e.f. 01.08.2003. Thus, the grant of second kramonnati w.e.f. 01.08.2003 has been challenged after 20 long years. However, the petitioner is right in submitting that in case the kramonnati is granted from the year 2000, then it will have some bearing on the pension.

7. However, the petitioner has not challenged the order by which he was given second kramonnati w.e.f. 01.08.2003. Unless and until, said order is set aside, no relief can be granted to the

petitioner. Further, fence sitter is not entitled for a relief merely because some vigilant person was pressing his cause.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 has held as under :

19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.

* * * *

28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115 has held as under :

"10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking

relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59 has held as under :

"15. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time- barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."

11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. v. Seshachalam reported in (2007) 10 SCC 137 has held as under :

"16. ... filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 SCC 798 has held as under:-

"10. Mere repeated filing of representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief, was considered in Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. Kasbekar [Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. Kasbekar, 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 64 : AIR 1954 Bom 202] , by Chagla, C.J. observing as follows: (SCC OnLine Bom : AIR p. 203, para 2) "2. ... Now, we have had occasion to point out that the only delay which this Court will excuse in presenting a petition is the delay which is caused by the petitioner pursuing a legal remedy which is given to him. In this particular case the petitioner did not pursue a legal remedy. The remedy he pursued was extra-legal or extra-judicial. Once the final decision of the Government is given, a representation is merely an appeal for mercy or indulgence, but it is not pursuing a remedy which the law gave to the petitioner. ...".

13. This Court in the case of Shri Ratiram Dohare vs. The State of M.P. and others decided on 04.08.2022 in W.P. No.17493/2022 (Gwalior Bench) has held as under:-

" Non-grant of increment or kramonnati will necessarily effect the salary as well as pension. Thus, the same can be said to be a recurring cause of action. The only question for consideration is as to whether this Court can refuse to grant relief even in such cases or not. In the case of Mamta Mohanty (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"52. In the very first appeal, the respondent filed writ petition on 11-11-2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6-10-1989 w.e.f. 1-1-1986

without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no plea to raise the issue of limitation even at the appellate stage because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter. (See Lachhmi Sewak Sahu v. Ram Rup Sahu [AIR 1944 PC 24] and Kamlesh Babu v. Lajpat Rai Sharma [(2008) 12 SCC 577] .)

53. Needless to say that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches. In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. In such an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the court may refuse to grant relief for the initial period in case of an unexplained and inordinate delay. In the instant case, the respondent claimed the relief from 1-1-1986 by filing a petition on 11-11-2005 but the High Court for some unexplained reason granted the relief w.e.f. 1-6-1984, though even the Notification dated 6-10-1989 makes it applicable w.e.f. 1-1-1986.

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. (See RupDiamonds v. Union of India [(1989) 2 SCC 356 : AIR 1989 SC 674] , State of Karnataka v. S.M.Kotrayya [(1996) 6 SCC 267 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488] and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [(1997) 6 SCC 538 :1997 SCC (L&S) 1550 : AIR 1997 SC 2366] .) ***

68. From the aforesaid discussion, the following picture emerges:

(xv) The cases had been entertained and relief had been granted by the High Court without considering the issue of delay and laches merely placing reliance upon earlier judgments obtained by diligent persons approaching the courts within a reasonable time.

Since, the petitioner has approached this Court after 35 long years of his first cause of action and after 11 long years of his retirement. It is well established principle of law that delay defeats equity."

14. Since the petition has been filed after 21 long years and without any explanation, therefore, no relief can be granted.

15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

vinay* VINAY KUMAR BURMAN 2023.06.16 17:58:18 +05'30'