Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijendra Kumar Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 2195 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BRIJENDRA KUMAR NAMDEO S/O LATE SHRI
CHITRANSH NAMDEO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O AND M ) SUB
DIVISION BEOHARI MP PURVA KSHETRA VIDHYUT
VITRAN COMPANY LTD. UNDER EXECUTIVE
ENGINNER (O AND M) DIVISION SHAHDOL DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETRY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. PURVA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY SHAKTI BHAWAN,
RAMPUR, JABALPUR DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.) M.P.
PURVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY IN
THE OFFICE OF CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR
AND A) SHANTI BHAWAN BLOCK NO.7 RAMPUR
JABALPUR DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (H.R. AND A) M.P.
PURVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
BLOCK NO.7 SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR
JABALPUR DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. POWER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 2/13/2024
5:24:06 PM
2
MANAGEMENT COMPANY BLOCK NO. 7 SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI B.D. SINGH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND SHRI AMALPUSHP SHROTI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS. 2 TO 5)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing Writ Petition No.25682 of 2018, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is argued that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, there was a
provision that a candidate who was graduate engineer prior to appointment
would be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer after completing four
years of service. The said stipulation was made in the circular dated 15.11.1990.
Later on, the said society was abolished and services of the petitioner and other
employees were merged with the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board vide
order dated 18.05.2004 w.e.f. 15.03.2002. Later on, the Madhya Pradesh
Electricity Board was also abolished and the services of the petitioner were
merged in the Madhya Pradeseh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company
Limited. One Panchraj Tiwari who was also working with the society claimed
promotion on the basis of the circular dated 15.11.1990. The matter travelled up
to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and his claim was allowed. It was held that he is
entitled to retrospective promotion at par w.e.f. the date on which the junior
most graduate engineer in the parents service on the date of absorption obtains
such promotion and in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the benefit was extended to Shri Panchraj Tiwari. The petitioner has
claimed the similar benefit. The learned writ court has considered all the aspects
of the matter and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner
has slept over his right for a considerable time.
3. The learned writ court has also took note of the fact that if the petitioner is
granted promotion after such a long time, then the entire gradation list will be
affected. The petitioner has not made any of the juniors to him who have been
extended the benefit of promotion as party to the writ petition and who will be
affected by the promotion of the petitioner. The petitioner is claiming the benefit
of the circular which was issued in the year 1990. He has slept over his right for
a considerable period and only when other candidate who was litigating since
beginning was granted the benefit, the petitioner woke up from a deep slumber
and tried to take advantage of that circular. The record also indicates that the
writ petition being W.P.No.10306 of 2014 was also filed on earlier occasion
which was disposed off on 27.07.2016. The said order has not been brought to
the notice of the court by the writ petitioner. Under these circumstances, the
learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition being not maintainable on the
ground of delay and laches.
4. The law is settled on the issue that a sleeping litigant is not entitled for any
relief only on the basis of the fact that in similar circumstances an employee has
been granted the benefit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Orissa vs Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 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. (See Rup Diamonds vs Union of India (1989) 2 SCC
356, State of Karnataka vs S.M. Kotraya (1996) 6 SCC 267 and
Jagdish Lal vs State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538."
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Focus Energy Ltd. (M/s) vs
Government of India (DB) reported in I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53 has held as
follows :
"10. Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that
appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it to any
relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Others, AIR
2007 SC 1365 the Supreme Court has held that delay and laches are
relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In Municipal
Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the
Supreme Court has observed that discretionary relief can be provided
to one who has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights.
Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. In the State
of Haryana v. Aravali Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been
held that where third party rights are created, the High Court should
not interfere. Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it has
been held that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not
encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties
crystallizes in the interregnum."
6. Further, in the case of Ashok Kumar vs District Magistrate, Basti
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under :
"10. ... It is time and again, stated that a party who has slept over his
right since is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High
Court."
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has slept over his right for a considerable period
and awaited for outcome of the litigation which was filed by one Panchraj
Tiwari and only thereafter he has been litigating the matter before the court.
Under these circumstances and in view of the settled proposition of law that a
sleeping litigant is not entitled for any relief, no relief can be granted to the
appellant. The learned writ court has rightly analyzed all the aspects of the
matter and has dismissed the writ petition, which does not call for any
interference in the present writ appeal.
8. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
