Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 972 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2004-08-27

G.S.SINGHVI, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2004
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. After 11 years of the alleged termination of his service, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to appoint him as white-washer. 2. The petitioner has averred that he was appointed as white-washer in Public Works Department in the beginning of 1990 and that his service was terminated in 1993 while he was posted at Jhajjar. He has further averred that despite repeated representation to the departmental authorities, he has not been taken back in service and even legal notice dated 22.3.2004 sent by his counsel has not yielded any result. 3. Shri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed in C.W.P. No. 526 of 2004 Rajiv alias Ruli v. State of Haryana and circular, dated 22.3.2004 (Annexure P2) issued by Chief Secretary, Haryana for expeditious disposal of the representations made by the employees, and submitted that the respondents may be directed to decide the petitioners notice and appoint him on the post of white-washer. 4. We have given serious though to the submission of the learned counsel, but have not felt persuaded to agree with him. Rather, we are convinced that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches because the petitioner has not offered any . tangible explanation for the long time gap of 11 years between the alleged termination of his service and filing of the writ petition. If he was to file a civil suit in the year 2004 for directing the respondents to appoint him as Washerman on the premises that alleged termination of his service in the year 1993 was illegal, the same was bound to dismissed as barred by time. Therefore, by entertaining the writ petition filed in the year 2004, we cannot allow the petitioner to over come the hurdle of limitation. In this context, it is appropriate to observe that even though, there is no statutory limitation for filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but as a rule of self-imposed restraint, the Courts have been extremely loath to entertain belated claims. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. In this context, it is appropriate to observe that even though, there is no statutory limitation for filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but as a rule of self-imposed restraint, the Courts have been extremely loath to entertain belated claims. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1006, the Constitution Bench considered the issue of delay in the filing of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and laid down the following proposition. "The special remedy provided in Art, 226 is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion the delay made by the aggrieved party in speaking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it. ......It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application. It may, however, be stated as a general rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus. ..... ...... .......The previous of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Article 226. However, the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may 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 a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable." 5. In Tilokchand Motichand and Ors. v. H.B. Munshi and Anr., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 898, another Constitution Bench and in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. etc. In Tilokchand Motichand and Ors. v. H.B. Munshi and Anr., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 898, another Constitution Bench and in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. etc. v. Union of India etc J.T. 1996(1) S.C. 283, eleven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in Bhai Lal Bhais case (supra) and held that the High Court should not entertain belated petitions. 6. In relation to service disputes, the Supreme Court in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary v. State of West Bengal and Ors., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2060 held that a petition filed for quashing the order of termination after lapse of 2 years deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. In the present case, the petitioner has not explained the delay of 11 years. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that he is guilty of laches and is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.