Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 144 (PAT)

Ram Bahadur Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2020-02-06

MADHURESH PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT Madhuresh Prasad, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-State.. 2. The brief factual background is that in 1979, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Tube-well operator in the work charged establishment. He continued to serve in the work charged establishment till 13.04.1985 on which date the work charged services of the petitioner was brought to an end. 3. It is the petitioner's case today that this Court in CWJC No. 3450 of 1985 passed and order on 20.09.1985 that those persons, who had been removed along with the petitioner were entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act and that after giving one month notice, or pay in lieu of the notice period, their services were required to be terminated afresh after giving them benefits of the back wages which has accrued in the meantime as they had remained out of work due to an illegal order passed without giving notice or pay in lieu of notice. Further submission is based on Annexure(s) 8 and 9 of the writ petitions. The said two Annexure(s) are decisions of the State Govt. dated 13.02.1997 and 19.07.1989 which in accordance with the submissions of the petitioners' counsel gives the petitioner a right to claim regularization as he had completed the requisite length of service under the work charge establishment for regularization as contemplated under these two policy decisions. 4. In so far as the first submission regarding the benefits under order of this Court dated 20.09.1985 in CWJC No. 3450 of 1985, this Court would observe that the order clearly records a direction in favour of the petitioners of the said writ proceedings. The order was clearly limited to those petitioner. Petitioner was not a party to the said writ proceedings disposed of on 20.09.1985. He therefore cannot be permitted at such a belated stage to claim benefits against the State on basis of the order passed therein. Petitioner also cannot be permitted to claim regularization on basis of the decisions of the Govt. issued long back in 13.02.1997 and 19.07.1989, today in these proceedings instituted on 30.03.2018. Such a claim would be barred by delay and laches as the petitioner admittedly last served in the work charge establishment till 13.04.1985. The remedy under Article 226 of the constitution, needless to say is for those who are diligent for their rights. issued long back in 13.02.1997 and 19.07.1989, today in these proceedings instituted on 30.03.2018. Such a claim would be barred by delay and laches as the petitioner admittedly last served in the work charge establishment till 13.04.1985. The remedy under Article 226 of the constitution, needless to say is for those who are diligent for their rights. Those who sleep over their rights for such a long period as in the instant case are precluded from raising such stale claim in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Paragraph nos. 27 and 28 of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 179 is worth mentioning in the instant case as the case is one of gross delay and laches both. The said two paragraphs are being quoted hereinbelow:- 27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. 28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court." 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.