- (1.) The appellant remained absent from duty from 1984. Thereafter, in the year 2001 he filed an Original Application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The said Original Application was dismissed with the observation that whether the applicant remained absent or not, the fact remained that he did not seek any redressal from any Court of law for a good long period of seventeen years. The Original Application has been dismissed by the Tribunal as being barred by delay and laches.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the matter only on the ground of delay and laches. In support of his submission the learned Counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. The State of Punjab & Haryana, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1806.
(3.) We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel. The petitioner admittedly remained absent without any sanctioned leave since 1984. There was no plausible explanation rendered for the delay caused in filing the original application in the year 2001. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner pertains to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Powers of the High Court to issue appropriate writs, orders or direction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are not subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act. Even then the High Court has the discretion to reject a writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. We may notice here the observations of the Supreme Court in the case P. S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil .Nadu, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 where it has been observed as follows: - "A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in the matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But, it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal".;