The State Of Rajasthan vs Uday Singh S/O Shri Late Ratan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5689 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2022
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,
         Jaipur (Raj.)
3.       Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4.       Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.       Anil Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About
         40 Years, R/o 9A, Shri Jagdishpuri, Heerapura, Ajmer
         Road, Jaipur (Raj.) Presently Posted As Constable (Belt
         No. 7014) At District Training Centre, Jaipur South, Police
         Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2.       Ranjeet Singh S/o Ghasi Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
         Presently Working As Assistant Sub Inspector At Reserve
         Police Line, Police Commissionerate Jaipur R/o Village
         Jhanjhar, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Respondents

Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 931/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Dhukal Ram S/o Shri Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Jaita Ki Dhani, Post Solo, Tehsil And Police Station Khandela, District Sikar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6979) At Police Station , Karni Vihar, Jaipur West, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub-Inspector Licencing

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (2 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur, R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1049/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Uday Singh S/o Shri Late Ratan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Puraharlal, Tehsil And Thana Bayana, District Bharatpur. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6294) At Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Ghasi Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Working As Assistant Sub Inspector At Reserve Police Line, Police Commissionerate Jaipur, R/o Village Jhanjhar, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Respondents

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1043/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Prem Prakash S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Dhafalpura, Post Gola Ka Bas, Tehsil Rajgarh, Police Station Tehla, District Alwar Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6033 At Technical Branch, Police

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (3 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Jay Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, aged about 45 years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, R/o Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1050/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Satyendra Kumar S/o Shri Sita Ram Dangi, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bibasar, Police Station Sadar, District Jhunjhunu. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 1039) At Police Station Vidhyak Puri, Jaipur South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Ghasi Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Working As Assistant Sub Inspector At Reserve Police Line, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur, R/o Village Jhanjhar, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1051/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Satyaveer Singh S/o Shri Hetram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Naharkhera, Post Khanpur Ahir, District Alwar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No.

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (4 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

6031) At Technical Branch, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Jai Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, Resident Of Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1053/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Sajad Ahmed S/o Liyakat Ali Khan, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Jajod, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 915) At Licensing Branch, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub- Inspector Licencing Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur, R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1056/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Hempal Singh S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of 109, Bhagat Ji Ki Dhani Ke Peeche, Bhawani Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur. Presently Posted As

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (5 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

Constable (Belt No. 7049) At Office Dcp South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Jai Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, R/o Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1057/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Sultana Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 21A, Shri Jagdishpuri, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6217) At Technical Branch, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub-Inspector Licencing Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1065/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Mohammad Hussain S/o Yusuf Khan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 100, Raghunathpuri, Kalwar Road, Ps Jhotwara Road, Presently Posted As Constable

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (6 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

(Belt No. 1125) At Official Additional Dcp 2Nd North, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub-Inspector Licencing Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1067/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Lal Kothi Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur

----Appellants Versus

1. Shankar Lal S/o Late Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Sargoth, Dhani Pipalya Wali, Ps Ringus, District Sikar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6008) At District Training Centre, Jaipur South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2. Jay Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, R/o Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mahrishi, AAG with Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Mr. Udit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Counsel with Mr. Shobit Tiwari, Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar, Mr. Rohit Tiwari

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (7 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

Per Honb'le Sameer Jain, J :-

Reserved on         - 25/07/2023

Pronounced on -          07/10/2023

1. In the present batch of appeals, the scope of the controversy

involved is identical. Therefore, considering the fact that the

appeals warrant adjudication on common question(s) of law, with

consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties,

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1055/2022 titled as The State

of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar and Ors., is being taken

up as the lead case.

2. The instant appeal is filed under Article 225 of the

Constitution of India whereby a challenge is made to the order

dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 5385/2021 titled as 'State of Rajasthan & Ors.

vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.' whereby the writ petition was disposed of

with certain modification(s) in the order impugned dated

18.09.2020 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate

Tribunal, Jaipur.

3. The ineluctable factual matrix, necessary for discerning the

nuances of the contentions made in the present appeal, are as

follows:

3/1. That respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar, was initially appointed

as Constable in Jaipur City, but was assigned seniority below the

respondent no.2 herein, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, who was transferred to

Jaipur City, on his own request from District Pali and who,

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (8 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

indisputably, joined services at Jaipur City after the joining of

respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar.

3/2. Being aggrieved of the purported error in ascertaining the

seniority and the consequential promotion of the officers by the

State, respondent no.1 approached the Rajasthan Civil Services

Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'Tribunal'), claiming seniority,

promotion and other consequential benefits.

3/3. That the learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the

provisions of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service

Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'Rules of 1989'), which provide that the

person transferred to another District shall be ranked junior most

in the particular rank in the District to which he is transferred,

vide order dated 18.09.2020, allowed the appeal preferred by the

respondent no.1 herein, and awarded in his favour all

consequential benefits including seniority and promotion.

3/4. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Tribunal,

the appellant-State filed a writ petition assailing the order dated

18.09.2020. While adjudicating upon the merits of the case, vide

impugned order dated 17.11.2021, learned Single Judge upheld

the order passed by the Tribunal, whilst modifying the same to the

extent of substituting the monetary consequential benefits so

awarded, with notional benefits only. Aside from the said

modification, the award of seniority and promotion was

maintained by the learned Single Judge, by concurring with the

rationale adopted by the Tribunal and placing reliance upon Rule

36 of the Rules of 1989.

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (9 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

3/5. As a result, being dissatisfied with the order dated

17.11.2021, the appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rajesh Mahrishi,

appearing on behalf of the State, has at the very outset contended

that the impugned order dated 17.11.2021 has been passed in

contravention and/or non-consideration of material aspects,

capable of pursuing the court for arriving at a contradictory

finding. In this regard, it was argued that the preliminary

objection raised by the State before the learned Tribunal, qua

delay and laches, on part of the respondent no.1-Mr Anil Kumar in

approaching the Tribunal, was not duly and/or adequately

considered by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated

18.09.2020. Thereafter, even the learned Single Judge while

exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, failed to consider the aspect of substantial delay on part of

the respondent no.1 in approaching the Tribunal. As a result, a

palpable error crept in the impugned orders dated 17.11.2021 as

well as 18.09.2020.

5. In order to substantiate upon the aspect of delay and laches,

learned AAG argued that respondent no.1 approached the learned

Tribunal in the Year 2019 for raising a challenge against the

Seniority List which was prepared in the Year 1997-1998, thereby,

resulting in a delay of over 20 years. Furthermore, it was also

contended that as per the prevailing Rules of 1989, prior to the

release of the final Seniority List, a provisional Seniority List is

published and objections from the affected candidates are invited.

The respondent no.1 did not raise any objections as against the

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (10 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

provisional Seniority List and thereafter, at this stage, pursuant to

the lapse of over 20 years, raised his grievance qua the Seniority

List in the Year 2019. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent

no.1 is reflective of persistent inaction and/or lethargy on his part,

resulting into his claim being barred by delay and laches, aside

from being nullity upon its adjudication on merits as well. In

support of the aforementioned arguments, reliance was placed on

the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Union of

India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC

648 and Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar

Municipal Corporation: Civil Appeal No. 4134/2022.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.K. Sharma,

appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, has submitted that

the order(s) impugned are well reasoned speaking orders, passed

in accordance with law and after having duly considered the

contentions raised by both the sides. Therefore, the order(s)

impugned do not call for any interference of this Court. However,

in order to refute the contentions raised by the learned counsel for

the appellant-State, Mr. Sharma submitted that as per Rule 3.6 of

the Rajasthan Police Manual and the Standing Order No. 03/2021,

the Police Department is under a legal requirement to publish the

Seniority List in a prescribed format. However, the appellant-State

failed to comply with the said legal requirement and escaped from

their duty to publish the said Seniority List. It was contended that

the aim of publishing the Seniority List in a prescribed format is to

get the same within the knowledge of the uniformed officers, with

an understanding to provide them with the requisite information

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (11 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

qua their date of posting in the present district, which is

quintessential for determining seniority. However, in the absence

of the said Seniority List coming into the knowledge of the

respondent no.1, he could not have taken the appropriate legal

recourse at the desired stage.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the promotional

exam for the post of Head Constable Vacancy for the Year 2010-

2011 was convened in the Year 2015 and prior thereto, a

provisional Seniority List was published in January 2015. In the

said list, the respondent no.1 was assigned seniority at No. 3650.

Therefore, a mere perusal of the aforementioned Seniority List did

not provide any conclusion regarding the parent district of the

constables and the date from which they have been posted due to

transfer in Jaipur District, as is essential in determining seniority.

In such circumstances, respondent no.1 was not able to conclude

that there were many constables, who of their own volition, had

been transferred to Jaipur District and had been erroneously

assigned seniority from the date of their initial appointment. As a

result, such constables, as referred above, were erroneously

placed over and above the respondent no.1, in terms of seniority.

It was submitted that only when respondent no.1 participated in

the Head Constable Promotional Examination for the Year 2010-

2011 conducted in the Year 2015, and several discussions were

underway with fellow officers/constables, that he came to know

about the fact that many constables, who were transferred to

Jaipur District (after the appointment of respondent no.1), were

assigned seniority over and above him.

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (12 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

8. Thereafter, without any delay, respondent no.1 took the

appropriate recourse and raised his grievance before the learned

Tribunal. Even otherwise, on merits, learned Senior Counsel

submitted that the Rules of 1989 do not contain any provision of

transfer of a Constable from one district to another district. The

said aspect has been rightly examined by this Court in Subhash

Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. CWP No.

10353/2021, wherein it was held that under no circumstances,

Constables could be transferred outside of their district. Moreover,

in the absence of any provisions qua the transfer of a constable

outside the district, same if permitted is entirely illegal.

Nevertheless, it was contended that if in such an eventuality, a

transfer is erroneously permitted, then the general service rules

shall prevail i.e. list of seniority and placement shall be at the

bottom of the list of the district/cadre. Therefore, it was argued

that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge,

correctly placed reliance upon Rule 36 of the Rules of 1989. In

support of the arguments made herein-above, reliance was also

placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in

Bach Raj Soni vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: Civil Appeal

Nos. 5698 and 7068 of 2000.

9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel

for both the sides, scanned the record of the appeal and perused

the judgments cited at Bar.

10. In order to methodically address and adjudicate upon the

controversy involved in the present appeal, this Court deems it

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (13 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

appropriate to partition its findings on each of the pertinent

contentions raised herein-above. At the outset, this Court shall

adjudicate upon the contention raised by the appellant-State with

regards to the aspect of delay and laches on part of the

respondent no.1 in approaching the learned Tribunal and whether

or not, adequate consideration was awarded to the said aspect, by

both the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge,

whilst passing the orders dated 18.09.2020 and 17.11.2021

respectively. Thereafter, subject to the findings on delay, this

Court shall deal with the purported error alleged to have crept in

the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on merits.

On Delay and Laches

11. Having perused through the record of the instant appeal, the

facts as enumerated below, have duly materialized:-

11/1. That as per the reply annexed with the instant appeal,

as submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.1, it is an

admitted fact that respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar, participated in

the Head Constable Promotional Exam conducted in the Year

2015. Moreover, pursuant to several discussions with fellow

Constables during the said examination, the respondent no.1

admittedly gathered knowledge about the fact that there were

many Constables, who had transferred to Jaipur District, pursuant

to the appointment of respondent no.1 himself, but who were

assigned seniority over and above him.

11/2. That as per the Rajasthan Police Manual of

Departmental Instructions, 2001, the Force Branch is instructed to

undertake a very nominal role in a fixed proforma, whilst taking

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (14 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

note of the relevant information qua the Constables in the force.

They are required to take note of the following information only:

(i) Serial Number (ii) Name and Father's Name of the

Constable/Officer (iii) Belt Number (iv) Caste (v) Date of Birth (vi)

Permanent place of residence including name of village, police

station and district (vii) Educational Qualifications (viii) Date of

first appointment (ix) Name of the department of first

appointment (x) Details of training along with name of training,

place of training, periodicity and result of training (xi) Date of

promotion along with rank of promotion (xii) Date of confirmation

on the higher post along with designation of the higher post (xiii)

Date of superannuation (xiv) Date of posting to the present

district (xv) Remark.

11/3. That as per the application/form filled by the

respondent no.1 himself on 05.01.2015, qua the Head Constable

Promotional Exam for the Year 2010-2011, it is made clear that

respondent no.1 had duly filled in the relevant entries, as noted

above, of his own knowledge and volition, after having perused

and/or analyzed the entire record qua the Seniority List, pursuant

to which, he had also penned down his signature thereto. It is also

relevant to note that in the said application/form, the respondent

no.1 had not raised any dispute/objection qua his seniority. For

reference, the said application/form is marked as 'Annexure R/1-

2'.

11/4. That as per the application/form filled by the

respondent no.1 himself for the Head Constable Promotional

Examination for the Year 2011-2012, it is made clear that for the

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (15 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

first time an objection was raised by the respondent no.1 with

regards to his seniority on 24.09.2015. For reference, the said

application/form is marked as 'Annexure R/1-2.

11/5. That subsequent to the objection so raised on

24.09.2015, respondent no.1 approached the learned Tribunal in

the Year 2019.

12. Thus, taking note of the established and/or admitted facts as

enumerated herein-above, it is made abundantly clear that

respondent no.1 had acquired absolute and unscathed knowledge

regarding his own position in the Seniority List as well as that of

his fellow Constables in the Year 2015 itself. However, despite the

same, respondent no.1 approached the learned Tribunal for the

first time in the Year 2019, after a prolonged lapse of four years.

Therefore, under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal as well

as the learned Single Judge, ought to have taken note of the delay

on part of the respondent no.1 in raising his grievance at a belated

stage.

13. On the aspect of delay, it is pertinent to take note of the

settled position of the law, insofar as it dictates that the doctrine

of delay and laches must not be lightly brushed aside by the

Courts. It is indispensable for a writ court to juxtapose the

explanation offered by the defaulting party qua the delay,

alongside the plausible acceptability of the same, in order satisfy

itself for granting indulgence in the matter. The Court must 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

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (16 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without

adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or

pleasure, the Court would be under a legal obligation to scrutinize

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 causes injury

to the lis. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the said

dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Chennai

Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors vs.

T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and Union of

India and Ors. vs. N. Murugesan reported in (2022) 2 SCC

45.

14. As a result, when a writ court is faced with the dilemma of

granting indulgence to a delayed lis before it, consideration must

duly be afforded to the plausibility of belated court interference

causing confusion and public inconvenience, which may very well

give rise to new injustices accruing to third parties, who did not

anticipate obtrusion of their rights, which were secured for a

considerable period of time. Moreover, while the law of limitation

does not by statute apply to writ petitions, a constitutional court

must exercise caution as the doctrine of delay and laches is

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (17 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

applied with the aim of securing the quiet of the community,

especially that of the third parties. If we lose sight of the fact that

there must be a constrained and/or limited lifespan during which a

person must approach the court for their remedy, there would be

an unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the

third parties. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact

that granting indulgence at a belated stage could substantially

affect the rights of numerous third parties i.e. Constables of the

force, in large numbers, whose promotion and/or seniority had

already been crystallized.

15. In support of the observations made herein-above, reliance

can also be placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as

enunciated in Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak (Supra) and

Tarsem Singh (Supra). In Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra

Pathak (Supra), it was held as under:

"11. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, while referring to the decision in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and Others, quoted the following passages from the latter decision:

8. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (18 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years."

In Tarsem Singh (supra), reference was also made to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the following passage from Balkrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare and Others v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan and Others, which had explained the concept of continuing wrong in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908, corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 observing that:

"31. It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury.

Accordingly, in Tarsem Singh (supra) it has been held that principles underlying 'continuing wrongs' and 'recurring/successive wrongs' have been applied to service law disputes. A 'continuing wrong' refers to single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. 'Recurring/successive wrongs' are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. Having held so, this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) had further elucidated some exceptions to the aforesaid rule in the following words.

"To summarize, normally a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (whereby remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (19 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc, affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."

16. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing discussion, this Court

deems it appropriate to hold that the learned Single Judge, while

adjudicating upon the lis before it, should have awarded due

consideration to the doctrine of delay and laches, on part of

respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar, in raising his grievance with a

substantial delay of four years, despite being aware of the position

of the Seniority List and having accepted the same for a prolonged

period of four years. Though there is no time limit specified under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for filing a petition before

the appropriate authorities, however, relying upon the principles of

reasonability and promptness, the respondents ought to have

been prompt in raising their grievance and should not have sit

tight over the matter for a considerably long period of time.

Moreover, while passing the impugned order dated 17.11.2021,

consideration should have also been afforded to the plausibility of

[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (20 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]

belated court interference causing confusion and inconvenience,

which could potentially give rise to new injustices accruing to the

large number of other Constables (third parties), who did not

anticipate obtrusion of their rights viz-a-viz promotion and

seniority, which were secured/crystallized for a considerable period

of time.

17. Therefore, taking cognizance of the established delay on part

of respondent no.1 in raising his grievance and the said aspect

subsequently missing the considered attention of the learned

Single Judge, this Court, without going into the merits of the case

but solely on account of delay and laches and having relied upon

the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex as enunciated in Rushibhai

Jagdish Chandra Pathak (Supra) and Tarsem Singh (Supra),

deems it appropriate to allow the present appeal.

18. As a result, the order impugned dated 17.11.2021 is

quashed and set aside.

19. In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed. Pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

20. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

ANIL SHARMA /20-30

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)