ROOP NARAIN SHARMA Vs. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

LAWS(RAJ)-2009-4-117

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Decided on April 15,2009

Roop Narain Sharma Appellant

VERSUS

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allow selection grade pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 1st July, 1979 in terms of Para 49 of the Arbitration Award dated 15.06.1979. The prayer made in the writ petition reads as under: i) that by an appropriate writ or order or directions, this Hon'ble court be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition in favour of the petitioner. ii) that by an appropriate writ, order or directions, this Hon'ble court be pleased to allow Selection Grade Pay Scale to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.79 in terms of Para 49 of the Arbitration Award dated 15.6.79. iii) that by an appropriate writ, order or directions, this Hon'ble court be pleased to allow interest on the amount of selection grade payable to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.79. iv) that this Hon'ble court be pleased to allow any other relief and may pass any other order in favour of the petitioner which this Hon'ble court considers fit under the facts and circumstances of this case. v) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to quantify cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." The learned Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition has been filed in the year 2002 seeking relief accrued to him under the Award passed in 1979 i.e. after 23 years, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay/laches in filing the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that he was making the representations for the same relief from time to time, therefore, he could not file the writ petition earlier in time and in view of his representations, the delay should not come in his way in granting the relief, as prayed in the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that he has sought the relief in this writ petition for grant of selection grade pay scale with effect from 1st July, 1979 in terms of Para 49 of the Arbitration Award dated 15th June, 1979, the writ petition was preferred before this Court on 29th October, 2002, hence it is clear that this writ petition has been preferred with a delay of more than 23 years. In P. Girdharan Prasad Missir and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. , the Division Bench of Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay where the writ petition was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. , dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay/laches alone where the writ petition was filed after two and a half year after issuance of Notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Miss Ajay Walia , dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay/laches in filing the writ petition. The Supreme Court considered that the writ petition has been filed to seek appointment after 13 years and the same is not entertainable even though the petitioner had been making representations to various authorities during that period. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that representations filed repeatedly do not furnish a cause of action. As mentioned above, the present writ petition has been filed with an inordinate delay of more than 23 years and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Miss Ajay Walia (Supra), the representations filed repeatedly do not furnish a cause of action, hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay/laches. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches with no order as to costs.;

Click here to view full judgement.