Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 680 (MP)

Sushila Sinha v. State of M. P.

2004-08-19

A.M.SAPRE

body2004
JUDGMENT This is a writ filed originally before the State Administrative Tribunal (for brevity SAT) by the petitioner under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act being O.A. No. 248 of 1996. However, consequent upon the abolition of SAT the said O.A. was transferred to this Court for its disposal according to law. This is how, this O.A. came to be registered as writ petition No. 4908 of 2003. It may also be mentioned that this petition was dismissed under mistaken belief and on an incorrect statement made by the State counsel on 6.4.2004. However, later this Court by order dated 16.7.2004, passed in M.C.C. No. 265 of 2004 recalled the order dated 6.4.2004 and restored the petition for its disposal. This is how this petition was heard on merits after affording an opportunity to both the parties. In substance, the petitioner claims following reliefs as is clear from reliefs No.9 (a), (b) and (c) : "9 (a). The respondents be directed to treat the applicant to be in government service from 1.8.1964 and not from 12.4.1965 irrespective of the fact that the applicant was initially appointed on the non-gazetted post by counting the initial appointment as length of service, as per the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules and to revise all the retiral benefits accordingly and to dispose the same within a specified time. (b) The applicant's pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits be revised on the basis of the proforma promotion with retrospective effect on the post of Dy. Director, Panchayat and social Welfare and on the post of Jt. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare from the date when Shri B.D. Sharma, Smt. V. Shellat and Smt. Adrash Kumari Bharti were promoted on the aforesaid posts and to disburse the same thereafter within a specified time. (c) An interest @ 18% per annum as per market custom be awarded to the applicant, as because of the lethargy of the respondents, the applicant could not get the finalization of retiral benefits even after the expiry of about more than six years from the date of her retirement." In para 3 and 6.1 of the writ petition, it is specifically averred that petitioner retired from her services on 30.6.1989. This petition was filed on 14.3.1996 i.e. almost after 7 years from the date of her retirement. This petition was filed on 14.3.1996 i.e. almost after 7 years from the date of her retirement. A right to claim all reliefs namely - notional promotion, re-fixation of seniority, pension etc. in clear terms arose to the petitioner at-least on 30.6.1989 i.e. the date on which the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Similarly her right to claim seniority and promotion qua one Mr. H.D. Sharma arose when Mr. Sharma was given promotion prior to petitioner on 8.10.1989 (see return of the State, para 4). The aforesaid facts which are matters of record and are not in dispute, in my view, result in dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of limitation, delay and latches. Indeed, it is rightly urged by learned counsel appearing for the respondents and I am inclined to accept the submission. Coming to the Court after a period of 7 years from the date of cause of action i.e. 30.6.1989 and/or 8.10.1989, in my view, is fatal to the survival of the petition. This Court can always take judicial note of this legal issue which cannot be ignored while exercising the discretion. Indeed, this being an application when originally filed before the SAT under section 19 of the Act was governed by law of limitation as prescribed under the said Act. It was barred when it was filed before the SAT. Even otherwise, a writ which is not governed by any law of limitation, yet one is required to come to Court no sooner the cause of action accrues. The limitation is neither curtailed, nor explained by mere sending representations by an aggrieved after the accrual of cause of action. I, therefore, do not consider it proper to grant any relief to the petitioner in such a belated petition. That apart, so far as one relief (9-a) is concerned, even according to petitioner the same is already granted to the her and hence, there does not appear any need to entertain the writ relation to consideration of that relief. Taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case and totality of the circumstances, I do not consider it to be a fit case for granting the aforementioned reliefs. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.