- (1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner was appointed on 28th July 1980 as Class IV employee in Kanya Junior High School, Allahabad. According to the allegations made in the instant writ petition she was restrained from working with effect from 22-4-1991, though no order in writing was passed. She was not paid any salary subsequent to the said date. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 19-12-1995 praying that an appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to allow her to work on the post of the peon at the said School. The petition has been filed at a belated stage after the expiry of about 4 years and 8 months.
(2.) IN the case of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR, 1974 SG 2077, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has observed that a stale claim cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. A similar view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore v. F. K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190 holding that the party must approach the court within reason able time. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has considered this issue in the case of M/s. Tilok Chand Mod Chand v. H. B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 398 and held that the petition filed at a belated stage cannot be entertained. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Rabinder Nath Bose v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470 observed as under :- "it would not have been the intention 'that this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of years'. It is said that Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right. So it is, but it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution makers that this Court should discard all principles and grant relief in petition filed after inordinate delay. " Shri J. S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the law of limitation is not applicable in writ jurisdiction and the delay of about 4 years and 8 months is not so inordinate as to make her non-suited for the equities relief. This issue has also been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sudama Devi v. Commissioner, 1983 (2) SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under ; "there is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is in fact doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under rules made by the High Court or by practice. In every case it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as a period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner. ".
(3.) TIME, in view of the above discussion the delay of 4 years and 8 months in approaching this Court is inordinate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has filed the representation before the appropriate authority on 20-5-1992 and another representation in December 1994. I am of the Considered opinion that making repeated representations without getting any relief or success or any response from the respondents cannot furnish any explanation of delay in approaching the Court unless filing of such representation is required by the statute itself. In the instant case filing the representations before the appropriate authority is not required under any provision or any statute. The first representation as alleged in the writ petition has been filed on 20-5-1992. The first representation itself had been filed before the appropriate authority after a lapse of more than a year and thus there is no justification for taking into consideration the said representation for deciding whether there was sufficient cause for not approaching this Court by the petitioner promptly.;