Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 181 (JK)

Mohammad Ramzan Magray v. State of J&K

2019-04-02

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2019
Judgment 01. In this petition, the petitioners have craved the indulgence of this Court in granting them the following relief(s):— “By issuance of writ order or direction one in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be commanded to pay the petitioners the pay and grade attached to the post of Meter Reader (Executive) in the pay scale of Rs.220-430 (pre-revised) w.e.f. the respective dates they have been promoted as Meter Reader (Executive cadre) with all consequential benefits and give the similar treatment to the petitioners as well as has been accorded in the case of writ petitioners in SWP No. 2455/2001 titled Subash Chander and others v/s State and ors and other similar writ petitions and similar situated Meter Readers/ writ petitioners in the other writ petitions and release all consequential benefits in their favour retrospectively as same shall be in the interest of justice and equity.” 02. Heard Mr Javaid, the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the documents on record and considered the matter. 03. In essence, the petitioners are seeking benefit of judgment dated 26th of February, 2008 passed in Jammu wing of this Court in SWP No.2455/2001 for release of grade of Rs.220-430 (pre-revised) in their favour attached to the post of Meter Reader (Executive) w.e.f. the respective dates they have been promoted as Meter Readers (Executive) alongwith all consequential benefits. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the Court with a direction to the respondents to release the pay scale of Rs.220-430 (pre-revised) in favour of the petitioners therein with effect from the date they were promoted as Meter Readers with a further stipulation to the respondents that the petitioners therein shall also be paid arrears, if any due, with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, the said judgment was assailed by the respondent State before the Division Bench of this Court at Jammu wing, which appeal, however, came to be dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated 27th of July, 2009. Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the respondent State agitated the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country by medium of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) which petition, too, came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of order dated 10th of January, 2018. 04. Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the respondent State agitated the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country by medium of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) which petition, too, came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of order dated 10th of January, 2018. 04. From a bare perusal of the documents appended with the writ petition, alongwith the judgment dated 26th of February, 2008 passed in Jammu wing of this Court in SWP No.2455/2001, it becomes axiomatic that the petitioners in SWP No.2455/2011, on whose analogy the present petitioners are seeking the benefit of release of a particular grade with retrospective effect, had made their claim before the Court in the year 2001. They had agitated the claim before the Court at the relevant point of time for seeking redressal of their grievance, whileas the petitioners, herein this petition, upon gaining the knowledge of the release of benefits in favour of the petitioners who had approached this Court in 2001, have now, approached this Court after a period of 18 long years seeking parity. The approach adopted by the petitioners is not permissible in law. The petitioners were waiting for the outcome of the writ petition pending before this Court and have slept over the matter for quite a long period of time. In that view of the matter, the relief prayed for by the petitioners is hopelessly time barred and hit by the principle of delay and laches. 05. It is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. Even though there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Though, it is not a strict rule, the Courts can always interfere even subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and then approaches the Court and puts forward a stale claim in trying to unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. An employee, who sleeps like ‘Rip Van Winkle’ and got up from slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches. 06. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. An employee, who sleeps like ‘Rip Van Winkle’ and got up from slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches. 06. In “State of T. N. v. Seshachalam”, reported as “ (2007) 10 SCC 137 ”, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while testing the ‘Equality Clause’ on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefits, has ruled thus:— “......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 servant 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.” 07. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. The Court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction and that, as a constitutional Court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens, but simultaneously, it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis, at a belated stage, should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances, delay and laches may not be fatal, but in most circumstances, inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and that law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, there has been 18 years of delay in approaching the Court without any plausible explanation. 08. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, there has been 18 years of delay in approaching the Court without any plausible explanation. 08. In view of the above discourse, the petition of the petitioners, being hit by delay and laches, merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine alongwith the connected interim application, being IA No. 01/2019. 09. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.