Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 16 (MP)

Durjan Dhobi v. State of M. P.

2011-01-04

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT : Heard on the question of admission. This intra court appeal arises from the order dated 13.08.2010 passed in W.P.No.487/2009 by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents authorities to reinstate him as Chowkidar and to permit him to continue on the said post with all consequential benefits. It is stated that the appellant had been initially engaged as daily wage Chowkidar in the year 1988 in the Forest Department and was continued as a daily wager till 1997 after which he was discontinued without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. It is stated that though the petitioner continued to make representations to the respondents authorities seeking re-engagement, no action was taken by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the aforesaid writ petition seeking a direction for his re-instatement and consequential benefits. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the submissions of the petitioner and has wrongly dismissed the petition relying upon the decision rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others, 2006(4) SCC 1 by the apex Court. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner who was engaged on daily wage basis does not have any right, statutory or otherwise, to seek a direction that he be re-instated as Chowkidar and be continued on that post with all consequential benefits, as he was admittedly not engaged after following any procedure prescribed by law and in such circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Besides that the appellant who was disengaged as a daily wager in the year 1997 has approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the year 2009 and there is no reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay and laches on his part and, therefore, the appellant is guilty of delay and laches, which disentitles him to claim relief invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondents authorities may be directed to consider the representation of the appellant for his reinstatement. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondents authorities may be directed to consider the representation of the appellant for his reinstatement. We are afraid, in view of exposition of law by the apex Court in Union of India V. M.K. Sarkar, (2010)2 SCC 59, wherein their Lordships observed that a writ cannot be issued commanding the respondents to consider or reconsider a dead or stale issue. It has held as under : "16. A court or Tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is within reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." In view of the above, the appellant is not entitled to get any relief. We, therefore, do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.