Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2071 (HP)

Inder Singh Rahal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-09-26

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. LPA No.260 of 2011 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21st February, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No.7877 of 2008, titled Inder Singh Rahal vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed, (for short, the impugned judgment). 2. The precise case of the writ petitioner/appellant herein was that he was entitled to promotion prior to the promotion of Ram Dass and Mohinder Kumar, but the respondents-State had not considered the case of the writ petitioner/appellant and granted him promotion. The writ Court, in terms of paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, examined the case of the writ petitioner and rejected his claim in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment. The foundation of the impugned judgment was made on the ground that the writ petitioner had not sought quashment of orders whereby Ram Dass and Mohinder Kumar were promoted. 3. It was for the writ petitioner to plead and show that he was entitled for promotion before Ram Dass and Mohinder Kumar, in which he has failed. Had he been able to make out a case for his promotion prior to Ram Dass and Mohinder Kumar, in that eventuality he was to seek quashment of the orders whereby these two persons stood promoted prior to the writ petitioner, which the writ petitioner has not done. 4. Having said so, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment is upheld. CWP No.379 of 2012 5. By the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the following main relief: “(i) That the impugned orders dated 26.6.1998 contained in Annexure P-4 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and may kindly be quashed and set aside. The petitioners may be held entitled to notional promotion or proforma promotion from that date when Respondent No.5 was promoted.” 6. From the perusal of Annexure P-4, it transpires that the said order was made by the respondents-State on 26th September, 1998. The petitioner did not challenge the said order Annexure P-4 right from 1998 till 29th November, 2011 when the instant writ petition was filed. 7. It is beaten law of land that delay takes away the settings of law. From the perusal of Annexure P-4, it transpires that the said order was made by the respondents-State on 26th September, 1998. The petitioner did not challenge the said order Annexure P-4 right from 1998 till 29th November, 2011 when the instant writ petition was filed. 7. It is beaten law of land that delay takes away the settings of law. A person who does not seek relief within the time frame, his petition has to be dismissed only on the grounds of delay and laches, waiver and acquiescence, otherwise, it would amount to gross misuse of jurisdiction. 8. The Apex Court in a case titled as R & M Trust versus Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others, (2005) 3 SCC 91 , held that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; delay defeats equity and it cannot be brushed aside without any plausible explanation. 9. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases titled as S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others versus Timudu Oram, 2005 AIR(SCW) 3715; Srinivasa Bhat (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. versus A. Sarvothama Kini (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2010 AIR(SC) 2106; and Bhakra Beas Management Board versus Kirshan Kumar Vij & Anr., 2010 AIR(SC) 3342. 10. In another case titled as State of Jammu & Kashmir versus R.K. Zalpuri and others, 2015 9 JT 214 , the Apex Court held that a Writ Court while deciding a writ petition, is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. It is apt to reproduce paras 26 to 28 of the judgment herein: "26. In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ court. 27. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ court. 27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and eventually proclaim "Deo gratias" 'thanks to God'. 28. Another aspect needs to be stated. A writ court while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless noninterference would cause grave injustice. The present case, need less to emphasise, did not justify adjudication. It deserved to be thrown overboard at the very threshold, for the writ petitioner had accepted the order of dismissal for half a decade and cultivated the feeling that he could freeze time and forever remain in the realm of constant present." 11. Following the law pronounced by the Apex Court, this Court has also laid down similar principles in LPA No.317 of 2010, titled Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College and Others Vs. Ramesh Chander Ladohia and Others, decided on 25th May, 2016. 12. Applying the test to the instant case, the petitioner is also caught by delay, laches, waiver and acquiescence. 13. Having said so, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly, along with pending CMPs, if any.