Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 227 (CAL)

Lal Mohan Saha v. Union Of India

2015-03-10

CHAMELI MAJUMDAR, JAYA DAS GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : Chameli Majumdar, J. There are 51 applicants who have joined in this Original Application challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not implementing. Flexible Complementing Scheme (PCS) w.e.f. 30.7.2001. They have also challenged the inaction on the part of the respondents in granting the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna at Jharkand Circuit in O.A. No. 75 of 2008 upheld by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in WP (S) No. 2503 of 2009 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 11219 of 2012. 2. The facts of the case as stated by the applicants are as follows: - The applicants were working as Scientist- `C', Scientist - `D' and Scientist - `E' in different units of Central Silk Board (CSB) in the State of West Bengal, They joined the service of Central Silk Board under the Ministry of Textiles as Sr. Research Assistant. On the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel & Training), Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 9.11.1998 took a derision that Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) would be applicable to Scientific and Technological Department particularly to those who were engaged in scientific activities and services with an objective hat only Scientists, who have created demonstrable achievement or higher level of technological merits are recommended for promotion under the FCS. Accordingly, a number of guidelines were laid down in the office memorandum dated 9.11.1998 for identifying institutions/organisations as Scientific and Technological Institutions as well as for defining the scientific activities and services. Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) was adopted by the Central Silk Board w.e.f. 30.8.2006 instead of 9.11.1998 pursuant to order of the Ministry of Textiles dated 30.8.2006. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in implementing the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCSI w.e.f. 30.8.2006 instead of 9.11.1998 i.e. the date of the Office Memorandum of DOPT certain employees of Central Silk Board working as Scientist at Ranchi filed O.A, No. 75 of 2008 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit at Ranchi). Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in implementing the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCSI w.e.f. 30.8.2006 instead of 9.11.1998 i.e. the date of the Office Memorandum of DOPT certain employees of Central Silk Board working as Scientist at Ranchi filed O.A, No. 75 of 2008 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit at Ranchi). The said O.A. was disposed of on 13.1.2009 directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to the Scientist working in Central Silk Board and its Research Institutes from 30.7,2001 with all consequential benefits within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondents moved a Writ Petition at Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi which was dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court at Jharkhand observed that administrative delay in conferring the said benefits to certain persons cannot be made the basis for making scheme itself effective from a date five years later i.e. 30.8.2006 from the date of its recognition i.e. 30.7.2001 without any rational and lawful justification. The same order of the Hon'ble High Court was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by passing the following order:- "In our opinion, taking into consideration the fact that the financial implication on the petitioner-organization is too meagre, we are not inclined to exercise our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to annul the judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the special leave petition. However, it is clarified that the judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are only in respect of those Scientists who were before the Tribunal as applicants and are respondents in this special leave petition," 3. The grievance of the applicants is that the applicants are similarly placed like the applicants of O.A. No. 75 of 2008, therefore, similar benefits should have been extended to them. The applicants submitted their representations which were disposed of by the respondents on 27.9.2013 rejecting their claim with the observation that the benefits-of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to be extended to only those Scientists who i/ere before the Tribunal. 4. The applicants submitted their representations which were disposed of by the respondents on 27.9.2013 rejecting their claim with the observation that the benefits-of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to be extended to only those Scientists who i/ere before the Tribunal. 4. The applicants have challenged the communication dated 30:8.2006 issued by the Ministry of Textiles wherein it was mentioned that this Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) would be effective in the Board from 30.8.2006 subject to amendment of Recruitment Rules as envisaged in paragraph 2 of the communication as arbitrary, discriminatory, without the authority of law, highhanded, oppressive and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 5. The respondents have filed their reply. The contention of the respondents was that the application was not maintainable inasmuch as the applicants were fence sitters and, therefore, they were not entitled to the relief since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that judgment would be confined to the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit at Ranchi). The cause of action arose in 2006. The applicants challenged the said order dated 30.8.2006 after a period of seven year and four months, therefore, the application was barred by limitation. The respondents have further contended that the Central Silk Board submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Textiles dated 24.10.2001 to extend Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to the Scientists of Central Silk Board. The said proposal was processed in the Ministry of Textiles and the Ministry took final decision only in 2006 conveying the approval for grant of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to Scientists of Central Silk Board at the level of Scientist - `B', `C' and `D' vide letter dated 30.8.2006, which has been impugned in this O.A. Accordingly, after screening and assessment interview, the promotions under FCS were extended to ail the eligible scientists pending approval of the Recruitment rules including the present applicants. The present applicants accepted the said promotion implemented after 30.8.2006. A group of 16 Scientists of Central Silk Board working at Central Tasar Research & Training Institute, Ranchi filed O.A. No. 75 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, Patna praying for Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from 9.11.1998 i.e. from the date of issue of Office Memorandum. A group of 16 Scientists of Central Silk Board working at Central Tasar Research & Training Institute, Ranchi filed O.A. No. 75 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, Patna praying for Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from 9.11.1998 i.e. from the date of issue of Office Memorandum. The above O.A. was opposed by the Ministry of Textiles and Central Silk Board on the ground that the applicability of the said Scheme to any organisation and the date of its applicability is the policy decision of the Govt. of India which is taken on various factors and after following all the prescribed procedures laid down in O.M. dated 9.11.1998. Besides, there was also an O.M. dated 17.7.2002 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training), Government of India wherein there is a bar on giving Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from a retrospective date as a matter of policy of the Government of India. The O.A. No. 75 of 2008 was disposed of with a-direction to grant the benefits of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to the Scientists working in Central Silk Board and its Research Institutes from 30.7.2001 with all consequential benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on the ground that CSB and its Research Institutes were recognised as S &T Organisation w.e.f. 30.7.2001 [by the Ministry of Science & Technology. The benefits of the Scheme were actually extended to the CSB Scientists' w.e.f. 30.8.2006. The respondents have further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order on 10.4.2013 in the SLP filed by the CSB that the financial implication on the petitioner organisation (CSB) was too meagre, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court was not interfered with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court was only in respect of those Scientists who were before the [Tribunal as applicants and respondents in the Special Leave Petition. The question of law was kept open to be agitated in appropriate case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that order would not be treated as precedent in any other case. The question of law was kept open to be agitated in appropriate case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that order would not be treated as precedent in any other case. Therefore, the Central Silk Board was rightly in refusing to extend the benefit of O.A. No. 75 of 2008 to the applicants. The respondent No. 2 has further contended that the Ministry of Science & Technology vide Office Memorandum dated 30.7.2001 had recommended that Central Silk Board be recognised as a Scientific 5 Technological Organisation and Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) be extended to the Scientists of Central Silk Board. It was further indicated in the said order that the respondents might consider the recommendation of the Ministry for implementation of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) with the approval of Department of Personnel & Training and Ministry of Finance. The respondents have further contended that the applicants in the instant case were keeping quite all along and waiting for ultimate result of the Original Application, therefore, the applicants are only fence sitters. As such, Original Application is liable to be rejected. The respondents have contended that the impugned order rejecting the representation of the applicants is valid and proper. The respondents have annexed a judgment passed by the Bangalore Bench on 23.4.2014 deciding the following O.A.s: "O.A. No. 1414/2013 to 1451/2013; dated 22.04.2014, O.A. No. 438/2014 to 441/2014; dated 23.04.2014, O.A. No. 921/2.013 to 956/2013: dated 23.04.2014, O.A. No. 1109/2013 to 1173/2013: dated 25.04.2014, 0;A. No. 460/2014 to 463/201 A. dated 25.04.2014, O.A. No. 549/2014 to 581/2014.'' 6. We have heard Mr. C, Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. A. Basu along with Mr. C.R. Bag. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. We have perused the documents. 7. The admitted position is that some of the Scientists of Central Silk Board approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench by filing 0. A. No. 75 of 2008 and the said O.A. was allowed by passing an order dated 13.1.2009 directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to the Scientists working in Central Silk Board and its Research Institute from 30.7.2001 with all consequential benefits. The department carried this matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand by filing WP (S) No. 2503 of 2009 which was dismissed. The department carried this matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand by filing WP (S) No. 2503 of 2009 which was dismissed. Thereafter the respondents being aggrieved preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the SLP in the following terms:- "Judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are only in respect of those Scientists who were before the Tribunal as applicants and are respondents in this special leave petition. The question of law raised and argued by Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior Counsel is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate case. All the contentions of both the parties are left open. We further clarify that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case." 8. Admittedly, the applicants were waiting for the decision of the Hon'ble if Supreme Court for the purpose of extension of similar benefits from 2001. All the applicants have been receiving the benefits under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from 2006. The applicants submitted their representations to implement the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench to them although they were not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. Their contention was that since they were similarly placed like the applicants before the Patna Bench, therefore, they were entitled to similar benefits from 2001. The respondents through general circular dated 27.9.2013 informed that the benefits would be available to only the applicants before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. 9. There is no dispute that the benefits under FCS Scheme was granted to the applicants on 30.8.2006, eight years after the introduction the Scheme and five years after the Board was declared as a scientific organisation but the applicants in the instant case did not feel aggrieved for the inaction of the respondents to implement the said Scheme from 2001 all the relevant time. They accepted the benefits under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from 2006 without any demur. It is evident that only after the result of O.A. No. 75 of 2008 came in favour of a group of 16 Scientists of Central Silk Board, who were before CAT, Patna Bench these applicants woke up from their sleep and submitted representations. They accepted the benefits under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from 2006 without any demur. It is evident that only after the result of O.A. No. 75 of 2008 came in favour of a group of 16 Scientists of Central Silk Board, who were before CAT, Patna Bench these applicants woke up from their sleep and submitted representations. The applicants before CAT, Patna Bench were vigilant and they approached CAT, Patna Bench in 2008 itself The cause of action arose at least in 2006 if noting 2001. 10. It is also apparent that since the order of the Tribunal involved huge financial implication, the respondents went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering all the facts and circumstances involved in the case clearly held that the financial implications on the Organisation were too meagre, as such, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court was not interfered with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also clarified in its order that the judgment and orders passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court were only in respect of those Scientists who were before the Tribunal as applicants and respondents in the SLP. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further kept open all the law points to be agitated in appropriate case. 11. The vital part of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not be treated as precedent in any other case. In lieu of such clear clarification of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is not open other applicants to cite the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support)[their stale claim and seek similar benefits in their favour as the order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No. 75 of 2008 merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP. That apart the issues involved in the said O.A. were kept open for agitation appropriate cases. 12. We find that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench after framing the issues rejected the O.As after consideration of the facts of the case and the relief prayed for in the said O.As. That apart the issues involved in the said O.A. were kept open for agitation appropriate cases. 12. We find that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench after framing the issues rejected the O.As after consideration of the facts of the case and the relief prayed for in the said O.As. The Bangalore Bench decided the question of limitation as well as the question as to whether the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench was a judgment in rem or judgment in personem after due consideration of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 11219/2012. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench held that the representation submitted by the applicants therein in the year 2013 were admittedly subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench that the O.A.s were hit by law of limitation which was a legal issue and was not decided by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. Therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench held that the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench was perincurrium in respect of the law of limitation. 13. In the instant case learned Counsel for the applicants has relied on the following judgments:- (i) K.L. Shephard v. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 SC 686. 14. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the view that in view of specific clarification made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the order shall not be treated as precedent in any case, the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench should not be treated as precedent in the instant case. The applicants cannot claim benefit of the said order in the present case. If any order is passed and/or any relief is granted by this Tribunal taking into consideration the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench and finalised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall run contrary to the clarification given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. 15. We have seen that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in para 17 held as follows:- "17. In the representation at Annexure A-6 and A-7 dated 7.6.2013 the applicants are seeking the benefit under the FCS from 30.7.2001. They waited till decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. We have seen that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in para 17 held as follows:- "17. In the representation at Annexure A-6 and A-7 dated 7.6.2013 the applicants are seeking the benefit under the FCS from 30.7.2001. They waited till decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Counsel for the applicants admits that there is a delay from 30.7.2001 to till date of submission of their demand on 7.6.2013. The delay has not been explained. The applicants are the fence sitters. As per the impugned circular ail the representations given by the Scientists of CSB in respect of their demand for grant of benefits of PCS are to be extended with effect from 30.7.2001 was referred to the Ministry and pSB is waiting for the decision of the Ministry. In the reply statement, the respondents submit as per the FCS Scheme dated 9.11.98, to give immediate effect to the decision contained in Para 5 of the said scheme, an umbrella notification has been issued vide GSR 660 (ER) dated 9.11.98. These rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India (Annexure R.1), rules regulating the in situ promotion under FCS applicable to Scientists and Technical Group posts in Department of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Department of Social Development, Ministry of Environment Forests and Wild Life, Department of Bio-Chemistry and the Department of Electronics. Accordingly, the schedule was issued to the said rules. Now where the Ministry of Textiles was included in the schedule. Accordingly, the said rules are not applicable to the applicants." 16. Admittedly the cause of action in the instant case arose in 2006 inasmuch as the applicants have challenged the order dated 30.8.2006. The applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench approached the Tribunal in the year 2008. However, as has been held by this Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench the issue of delay was not decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. In the instant case the applicants accepted the order of 2006, received the benefits arising out of the order of 2006. They chose to sleep over the matter and submitted their representation in 2013. Only after the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP with observation and clarifications. 17. Under the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 there is a prescribed period of limitation for approaching the Tribunal. They chose to sleep over the matter and submitted their representation in 2013. Only after the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP with observation and clarifications. 17. Under the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 there is a prescribed period of limitation for approaching the Tribunal. Section 21 of the AT Act, I985 is set out hereinbeiow: "21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, - (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates : and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or Sub-Section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. 18. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India & Ors., reported In AIR 19S2 SC 1414 has held as under:- "it is expected of a Government servant who has a legitimate claim to approach the Court for the relief he seeks within a reasonable period. This is necessary to avoid dislocating the administrative set-up after it has been functioning on a certain basis for years." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that Article 14 or the principle of non-discrimination is an equitable principle and, therefore, any relief claimed on that basis must itself be founded on equity and not be alien to that concept. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 267 has held as under:- "That although it is not necessary to give an explanation for the delay which occurred within the period mentioned in sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 21, explanation should be given for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the Tribunal should satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper." The fact that the applicants filed the belated application immediately after coming to know that in similar claims relief have been granted by the Tribunal is not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay. Para 9 of the said judgment is set out hereinbelow;- "9. Thus considered, we hold that it is not necessary that the respondents should give an explanation for the delay which occasioned for the period mentioned in sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 21, but they should give explanation for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the Tribunal should be required to satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper explanation. In this case, the explanation offered was that they came to know of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter. That is not a proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under subsections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2). That is not a proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under subsections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2). That was not the explanation given. Therefore, the Tribunal is wholly unjustified in condoning the delay." 20. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another v. Shri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandariani others, reported in 2014 (2) SLR 688 has held that, "even if a Court or Tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action." The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself, which is as under:- "14. In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 : [ 2009(6) SLR 756 (SC)], this Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issued or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court's direction. Neither a Court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 15. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the Court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. In Karnataka Power Corpn. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director v. K. Thangappan and another, (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the respondent-workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach. 16. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray, (1977) 3 SCC 396 [1977 (1) SLR 255 (SC)] it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik, (1976) 3 SCC 579 . 17. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others, (2011) 4 SCC 374 : [2012 (4) SLR 711 (SC)], a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lah, State of Haryana, (1977) 6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992. 18. In State of T.N. v. Seshachaiam, (2007) 10 SCC 137 : [2007 (2) SLR 860 (SC)], this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:- "filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a Court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a Government grant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a Court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a Government grant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant." In para 20 of the said judgment a decision rendered in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others reported in (2007)9 SCC 278 has been cited wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that thought here was no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the instant case we have already said that the Administrative Tribunal Act has prescribed for a period of limitation under Section 21 of the said Act, therefore, the O.A.s are to be filed within the prescribed time of limitation. However, the delay can be explained with sufficient reasons for consideration of the Tribunal. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision passed in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another reported in (2006)11 SCC 464 clearly held that when a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, his writ petition cannot be heard after a couple of years on the ground that the same relief should be granted to him as was granted to a person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years." As the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case has referred to a case of Union of India v. C.K. Dharagupta, reported in (1997) 3SCC 395. Relevant portion of the said judgment is cited below. - "10. In Union of India v. C.K. Dharagupta it was observed as follows: "9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. - "10. In Union of India v. C.K. Dharagupta it was observed as follows: "9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. The respondent C.K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi case. In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17.3.1987 could only be given to Joshi and nobody else, even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief." The above mentioned case U.P. Jal Nigam also refers to Halsbury's Laws of England. Paras 12 and 13 of the decision rendered in U.P. Jal Nigam is quoted as under. - "12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Haisbury's Laws of England, para 911, p. 395 as follows: "In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are: (i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and (ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part. Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. it is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon considerations rests the doctrine of laches." 13. In view of the statement of law as summarised above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Upon considerations rests the doctrine of laches." 13. In view of the statement of law as summarised above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussions on the financial management of the Nigam. Why should the Court come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence? 22. In Para 16 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if in the belated stage similar relief is given to the persons who have not approached the Court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam. 23. We have already said that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the Department clearly held that the relief should be restricted to the applicants of O.A. No. 75 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench with the observation that the financial burden was meagre. 24. It is also relevant to mention that the applicants herein have not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. 24. It is also relevant to mention that the applicants herein have not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. The belated representation of the applicants with regard to the stale claim and the impugned order passed by the authorities in 2013 cannot give rise to a fresh cause of action reviving the stale issue and the time barred dispute of non-extension of benefit under Flexible Complimentary Scheme (FCS) prior to 2006. 25. Having regard to the facts and law as stated hereinabove, this O.A. does not merit any consideration. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Applications is dismissed.