- (1.) This special appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 30.1.2009 and 9.11.2010 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5243 of 2009, Smt. Sarla Mishra Vs. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow and others.
(2.) The writ petition was filed with the following prayers: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3 to pass appropriate order on the representation dt. 03.04.2008 (i.e. Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) in the light of the appended judgment/order dt. 27.09.2004 of this Hon'ble Court passed in the writ petition no. 11208 of 1982 of Smt. Bimla Kumari/Petitioner's junior colleague; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to allow the same basic grade i.e. Rs. 200-320 in place of the modified/reduced grade Rs. 175-250 at the relevant time to the petitioner as was given to her junior colleague Smt. Bimla Kumari and add the deduction made from her salary in pursuance of the impugned order dt. 6.4.1982 passed by the respondent no. 4 in the salary of the petitioner and fix her salary accordingly; (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the instant writ petition; (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
(3.) The Writ Court after hearing counsel for the petitioner - appellant dismissed the writ petition holding that mere filing of repeated non-statutory and unsolicited representations are not defence or explanation for laches. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court the Writ Court concluded that such explanation for inordinate delay and laches cannot be a ground for exercising the extraordiary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Noticing the fact that the petitioner - appellant had approached this Court after about 27 years of her pay fixation the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30.1.2009 in the following terms: "Mere filing of repeated non-statutory and unsolicited representation cannot be taken as a defence or explanation for laches. The Apex Court about two scores of years ago in K.B. Laxmiya Shetty and others v. State of Mysore and others, 1967 AIR(SC) 993 and again reiterated in Gyan Singh v. High Court Punjab & Haryana, 1980 AIR(SC) 1894 has held that such explanation for inordinate delay and laches cannot be a ground for exercising the extra ordiary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case Karnakata Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, 2006 4 SCC 322.";