Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nidhi Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 August, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013
1 WA-1230-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 23rd OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1230 of 2024
SMT. NIDHI SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.S. Chouhan - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Heard on the question of admission.
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed assails the order dated 01.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed in Writ Petition No.20372/2023.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Head Constable in Mahila Thana, Burhanpur, District Burhanpur. Vide impugned order dated 19.12.2021, the respondent withheld petitioner's one annual increment with cumulative effect by holding preliminary enquiry, and thereafter initiating regular departmental enquiry, petitioner was terminated from her services. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal. The appellate authority upheld the impugned order but the charges shown in the charge-sheet were not proved by cogent Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 2 WA-1230-2024 evidence. The writ petition bearing W.P. No.20372/2023 was filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the impugned orders dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure P/6), 04.04.2012 (Annexure P/9), 21.05.2012 (Annexure P/10) and 08.10.2012 (Annexure P/11), which was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of complaint, the respondent No.4 called the petitioner on very same day and suspended her.
The respondent No.4 directed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. On this, CSP Burhanpur initiated preliminary enquiry against the petitioner and directed to appear and give her statement. During the preliminary enquiry, Salvendra Singh Tomar Additional S.P., Vikash Waghmare, R.I. Rajendra Kumar, and Chandrashekar, Banshilal Pawar and other number of witnesses statement have been recorded by the enquiry officer on 08.11.2011 and submitted an enquiry report before the respondent No.4. After receiving preliminary enquiry report dated 12.12.2011 suspension order has been revoked by the respondent No.4 and very same day charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. On 19.12.2011 on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, respondent No.4 by issuing the impugned order withheld the one annual increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Thereafter, regular Departmental Enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer. In the said departmental enquiry, statement of number of witnesses have been recorded but no any defence officer provided to the petitioner. After recording the statement and providing the opportunity of cross examined of the witnesses, the enquiry officer prepared the proof report and found all the allegations shown in the charge-sheet found to be proved against the petitioner and issued show cause notice to the petitioner and directed her to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 3 WA-1230-2024 submit her reply within 7 days. After receiving the said notice, petitioner submitted her reply on 02.04.2012. Vide order dated 04.04.2012, the respondent No.4 terminated the petitioner from her services. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal. The said appeal was rejected without considering appeal facts and evidence. Thereafter, petitioner preferred mercy appeal to the respondent No.2. The said appeal was party allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on the ground of delay. No any misconduct was committed by the appellant/petitioner as there was no any charge proved in the departmental enquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 initiated the preliminary enquiry as well as regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner because the petitioner misbehaved with the respondent No.4 and did not sign the R.I. Register/report. He further submitted that respondent No.4 has no power to pass order of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect. In regular departmental enquiry no any defence officer provided to the petitioner which is clear violation of the CCA Rules and on the said alone ground the entire departmental enquiry was vitiated.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that W.P. No.20372/2023 was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
6. Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court would like to deal with the preliminary issue with regard to delay and latches. The crux of the matter is that appellant had approached this Court after a huge delay of 11 years. It is well established principle of law that delay defeats equity. This Court is supported in its view by catena of judgments of Supreme Court which are as follows:
(i) The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpon. Ltd. Vs. K. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 4 WA-1230-2024 Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as under :
6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.
7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (PC at p. 239) was approved by this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service. Sir Barnes had stated:
"Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy."
8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay.
9. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 5 WA-1230-2024 on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
(II) The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of T.N. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 78 has held as under :
"11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard-and- fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit."
(III) The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 has held as under :
"6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.
7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, PC at p. 239 was approved by this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher and Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service. Sir Barnes had stated:
"Now the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 6 WA-1230-2024 technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, if founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy.
8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay.
9. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."
(IV) The Supreme Court in the case of Nadia Distt. Primary School Council Vs. Sristidhar Biswar reported in (2007) 12 SCC 779 has held as under :
"11. In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980 and the petitioners approached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 7 WA-1230-2024 Pal. Such persons should not be given any benefit by the court when they allowed more than nine years to elapse. Delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilant of their rights. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court condoning the delay of nine years cannot be countenanced."
(V) The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Jaswant Singh reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464 has held as under :
"12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury'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 these considerations rests the doctrine of laches."
(VI) The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Lal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 has held as under :
"18. That apart, as this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226or Article 32 of the Constitution."
(VII) The Supreme Court in the case of NDMC Vs. Pan Singh reported in (2007) 9 SCC 278 has held as under :
16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of.
The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 8 WA-1230-2024 been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan.)
17. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. (See Lipton India Ltd. v. Union of India and M.R. Gupta v. Union of India.)
18. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 277,paras 9-10) "9. It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore. There is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making overnment had turned down one representation the making of another representation on similar lines will not explain the delay. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray making of repeated representations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for delay alone. (See also State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik.).
10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit the appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone."
19. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it was not a fit case where the High Court should have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the respondents herein."
(VIII) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Amantaray reported in (1977) 3 SCC 396 has held as under :
6. It would thus appear that there is justification for the argument of the Solicitor-General that even though a cause of action arose to the petitioner as far back as 1962, on the rejection of his representation on November 9, 1962, he allowed some eleven years to go by before filing the writ petition. There is no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay for, as has been held by this Court in Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India the making of repeated representations, after the rejection of one representation, could not be held to be a satisfactory explanation of the delay. The fact therefore remains that the petitioner allowed some years to go by before making a petition for the redress of his grievances. In the meantime a number of other Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 9 WA-1230-2024 appointments were also made to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion from the State Civil Service, some of the officers received promotions to higher posts in that service and may even have retired.
Those who continued to serve could justifiably think that as there was no challenge to their appointments within the period prescribed for a suit, they could look forward to further promotion and higher terminal benefits on retirement. The High Court therefore erred in rejecting the argument that the writ petition should be dismissed because of the inordinate and unexplained delay even though it was "strenuously" urged for its consideration on behalf of the Government of India.
(IX) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik reported in (1976) 3 SCC 579 has held as under :
14. It is unnecessary to deal at length with the State's contention that the writ petitions were filed in the High Court after a long delay and that the writ petitioners are guilty of laches. We have no doubt that Patnaik and Mishra brought to the court a grievance too stale to merit redress. Krishna Moorthy's appointment was gazetted on March 14, 1962 and it is incredible that his service-horoscope was not known to his possible competitors. On November 15, 1968 they were all confirmed as Assistant Engineers by a common gazette notification and that notification showed Krishna Moorthy's confirmation as of February 27, 1961 and that of the other two as of May 2, 1962. And yet till May 29, 1973 when the writ petitions were filed, the petitioners did nothing except to file a representation to the Government on June 19, 1970 and a memorial to the Governor on April 16, 1973. The High Court made light of this long and inexplicable delay with a casual remark that the contention was "without any force". It overlooked that in June, 1974 it was setting aside an appointment dated March, 1962 of a person who had in the meanwhile risen to the rank of a Superintending Engineer. Those 12 long years were as if writ in water.
We cannot but express our grave concern that an extraordinary jurisdiction should have been exercised in such an abject disregard of consequences and in favour of persons who were unmindful of their so-called rights for many long years."
(X) The Supreme Court in the case of BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374 has held as under :
"26. On the other hand, where only the affected parties approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the fence-sitters who did not approach the court cannot claim that such relief should have been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued to others.
27. In Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, the appellants who were general candidates belatedly challenged the promotion of Scheduled Caste and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 10 WA-1230-2024 Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of the decisions in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab and this Court refused to grant the relief saying: (Jagdish Lal case, SCC pp. 562-63, para 18) "18. ... this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedents in this behalf. Suffice it to state that the appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from Virpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh ratios. But Virpal Chauhan and Sabharwal cases, kept at rest the promotion already made by that date, and declared them as valid; they were limited to the question of future promotions given by applying the rule of reservation to all the persons prior to the date of judgment in Sabharwal case which required to be examined in the light of the law laid in Sabharwal case. Thus earlier promotions cannot be reopened. Only those cases arising after that date would be examined in the light of the law laid down in Sabharwal case and Virpal Chauhan case and equally Ajit Singh case. If the candidate has already been further promoted to the higher echelons of service, his seniority is not open to be reviewed. In A.B.S. Karamchari Sangh case a Bench of two Judges to which two of us, K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. were members, had reiterated the above view and it was also held that all the prior promotions are not open to judicial review. In Chander Pal v. State of Haryana a Bench of two Judges consisting of S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ. considered the effect of Virpal Chauhan, Ajit Singh, Sabharwal and A.B.S. Karamchari Sangh cases and held that the seniority of those respondents who had already retired or had been promoted to higher posts could not be disturbed. The seniority of the petitioner therein and the respondents who were holding the post in the same level or in the same cadre would be adjusted keeping in view the ratio in Virpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh; but promotion, if any, had been given to any of them during the pendency of this writ petition was directed not to be disturbed."
The Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K reported in (2009) 15 SCC 321 has held as under:
22. If at this late juncture the petitioner is directed to be promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector even above Abdul Rashid Rather, the seniority of those who had been promoted in the meantime or have been directly recruited would be affected. The State would also have to pay the back wages to him which would be a drainage of public funds.
Whereas an employee cannot be denied his promotion in terms of the rules, the same cannot be granted out of the way as a result whereof the rights of third parties are affected. The aspect of public interest as also the general administration must, therefore, be kept in mind while granting equitable relief.
23. We understand that there would be a heart burning insofar as the petitioner is concerned, but then he is to thank himself therefor. If those five persons, who were seniors to Hamiddulah Dar filed writ petitions immediately, the High Court might have directed cancellation of his illegal promotion. This Court in Maharaj Krishan Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 11 WA-1230-2024 Bhatt did not take into consideration all these aspects of the matter and the binding decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion was right in opining that it was not necessary for it to follow Maharaj Krishan Bhatt."
(XI) The Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held as under :
"2. ... A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters."
(XII) The Supreme Court in the case of Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu and others v. R.D. Valand reported in 1995 Supp (4) 593 has held as under:-
"4. We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the stale claim of the respondent. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the year 1979 with effect from 28-9-1972. A cause of action, if any, had arisen to him at that time. He slept over the matter till 1985 when he made representation to the Administration. The said representation was rejected on 8-10-1986. Thereafter for four years the respondent did not approach any court and finally he filed the present application before the Tribunal in March, 1990. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more than 15 years. The Tribunal fell into patent error in brushing aside the question of limitation by observing that the respondent has been making representations from time to time and as such the limitation would not come in his way."
7 . The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has rightly held that appellant woke up from slumber only after her retirement. She has not chosen to approach this Court while she was in service and she has not submitted the option in time, therefore, she has been superannuated and she has filed petition Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 8/27/2024 11:16:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42013 12 WA-1230-2024 after a delay of 11 yeas without giving any sufficient cause.
8. In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the writ petition. So far as Writ Appeal filed by the appellant is concerned, the same is also dismissed in view of a huge delay without any cogent explanation in that regard. Hence, no interference is warranted.
9. Consequently, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ak
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 8/27/2024
11:16:26 AM