- (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Hindi Teacher in Government School, has approached this court impugning the communication dated 6.12.2004, vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of his conviction in FIR No. 24 dated 8.3.1999, registered under Sections 323/506 read with Section 34 and 376 IPC, Police Station, Behal, District Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case on account of rivalry. No doubt, he had been convicted and even the appeal against conviction was also dismissed by this court, however, the sentence was reduced to already undergone. Considering the past service of 35 years rendered by the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate. That fact has not been considered at all in the impugned order. Some lesser punishment could have been awarded.
(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The present petition having been filed more than 10 years after the order of dismissal from service was passed and more than 3 years after the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction was disposed of by this court, deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only.
(3.) The issue regarding delay in invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, 2006 11 SCC 464 . It was a case in which certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years but should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. They were still in service when the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed. Placing reliance upon that judgment, some of the employees, who already stood retired, filed writ petitions claiming same benefit. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment. The judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, 1989 2 SCC 356 ; State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, 1996 6 SCC 267 ; Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, 1997 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy, 2004 1 SCC 347 , it was opined that the persons who approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: "5. So far as the principal issue is concerned, that has been settled by this court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition. But the only question is grant of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same but filed writ petitions after the judgment of this court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik, 2005 13 SCC 300 . Whether they are entitled to same relief or not? Therefore, a serious question that arises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post-retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this court? 6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30.6.2005 and 31.7.2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not? XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 16. Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others.";