- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed on 07. 11. 1988 and an objection was taken by this court on 9. 10. 1991 regarding delay in filing the writ petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted at Pokaran and attended the duties upto 1. 06. 1982. It is alleged that from 2. 06. 1982 the petitioner went on leave because of health reasons. A telegram was sent to the petitioner on 10. 06. 1982. In the mean time, there was strike in the Board and ultimately the workers were allowed to be taken back. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a discrimination was caused with regard to the petitioner as in the telegram dated 10. 06. 1982 it was directed that the petitioner should be treated on strike since the date of absence and is to be taken on duty only after furnishing written under-taking in the prescribed form by the Board for those who remained on strike from 20. 04. 1981. On 15. 07. 1982, the Superintending Engineer has informed the Executive Engineer that in accordance with the directions of the Chief Engineer (T&c) R. S. E. B. , Jaipur Shri Ram Dutt Shastri, Junior Engineer, Pokaran is not to be taken on duty till further orders are given to him. A letter was also issued to the petitioner on 5. 08. 1982 for submitting an explanation for absenting from duty w. e. f. 2. 6. 1982, without leave. The submission of the petitioner is that he has been meeting the authorities from time to time and verbal assurances were given to him. On 6th May,1983, the Chief Engineer informed the petitioner that in case the petitioner does not report for duty at Pokaran, disciplinary action shall be taken against him. Reply to this notice was also sent by the petitioner. Ultimately, as per order dated 25. 07. 1983 the petitioner was informed that he is deferring the joining of duties at Pokaran for one pretext or the other and several notices have already been given to resume the duty and a last opportunity was given that on expiry of 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice, it shall be deemed that he has absented from duty for 8 consecutive days and his services shall stand automatically terminated under Regulation 9 (h) of the R. S. E. B. Technical Workmen Service Regulations and Regulation 21 of the R. S. E. B. Employees Service Regulation. In response to this letter, the petitioner has written that he was relieved on 5. 08. 1982 and has not been paid salary for one year. It was mentioned that payment thereof should be made immediately else he will be compelled to take legal action by approaching the court of law. Ultimately, the order was passed on 15. 09. 1983, by which the contract of service was terminated by the Board on account of being absent for more than 8 consecutive days without leave. The petitioner was advised to collect the dues from the office of Chief Engineer (T&c) RSEB, Jaipur. Representations were submitted by the petitioner on 14. 12. 1983 and 11. 4. 1986. The letters of the R. S. E. B. with regard to settlement of claim of the petitioner have also been produced along with the writ petition. The petitioner has a cause of action on 15. 09. 1983 in accordance with the Service Rules or to approach the court at that time. The petition having been filed in 1988 after delay of more than 5 years has been explained in para 24 of the writ petition that "since during this period the petitioner's financial condition worsened day by day and as such while continuing to represent, the petitioner simultaneously had to look for the means of survival. However in view of the ever increasingjinemployment of diploma holder Engineers the petitioner could not get suitable employment. The petitioner became mentally so puzzelled and financially so weak that he could not approach this Hon'ble Court immediately. However, he continued to represent his cause before the authorities who are primarily responsible for the protection of fundamental rights of all citizens. After termination order dated 15. 09. 1983, the representations dated 14. 12. 1983 and 11. 4. 1986 alone have been submitted along with the writ petition. The representation dated 11. 4. 1986 which was addressed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister has been denied to have been received by the respondents. The only point which has to be determined is whether the petitioner has a reasonable cause, in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, for filing the writ petition after such inordinate delay.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in State of M. P. vs. Bhai Lal Bhai (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that as a general rule if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily lend its aid to a party by this extra-ordinary remedy of mandamus. The provisions of Limitation Act as such were not applicable for grant of relief under Article 226 and it was held that the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for civil action for the remedy but where the remedy is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable. This was a case arising under the M. P. Sales Tax Act where the refund was claimed on the basis of levy being violative of Article 301 and not protected by Article 304 (A) of the Constitution of India. From this, it would be evident that no assistance can be sought by the petitioner of the above judgment, which rather goes against him. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is State of M. P. vs. Syed Qamarali (2) where the Apex Court has held that the order of dismissal has no legal existence and, therefore, the suit for recovery of pay filed 7 years after the dismissal was held not barred by limitation. The present matter does not relate for recovery of dues and from the various correspondence produced, it has been shown that the dues were tried to be paid by the respondents as early as they could have. ;