Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satya Narain Gupta vs Jvvnl & Ors on 3 November, 2016
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3954/1998
Satya Narain Gupta S/o Shri Male Ramji Gupta, aged about 50
years, R/o Near Ashoka Talkies, Court Road, Alwar. (Rajasthan).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur through its Chairam.
2. Secretary, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan,
Jaipur. (Rajasthan).
3. Financial Adviser & Controller of Accounts, Jaipur Vidhyut
Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur. (Raj.)
4. Shri N.M. Saini, Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran
Nigam Ltd., 220 KV Gss Ringus District Sikar (Rajasthan).
5. Shri B.S. Katewa, X-En, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur. (Rajasthan).
6. Shri O.P. Gaur, through Secretary, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam
Ltd., Jaipur. (Rajasthan).
7. Shri O.P. Bulia, A.A.O.(I-A-Rev) Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam
Ltd., Bailwara. (Rajasthan).
...Respondents
Date of Order-::-3rd November, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Deepak Sharma, for petitioner.
Ms. Parinitoo Jain, for respondent/s.
Fundamentally under challenge in this petition is the seniority list dated 17.06.1980 in the cadre of accountants with the erstwhile R.S.E.B. of which, after un-bundling, JVVNL came into existence as one of the five companies on whose role the petitioner then continued. This writ petition has been filed in the year 1998. On a question being put to the counsel for the -2- petitioner to explain the 18 years delay in laying a challenge to the impugned seniority list dated 17.06.1980, counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay is justified for reasons of various representations having been made thereagainst and not being addressed all along. In the reply to the petition, it has been categorically stated that no representations qua the seniority list dated 17.06.1980 in the cadre of accountants with the erstwhile R.S.E.B. and thereafter with JVVNL were received. The rejoinder not surprisingly denies the respondent's averment without any prima facie proof as the burden on the petitioner was to discharge.
Aside of the aforesaid, it is well settled that mere filing of representations does not postpone the cause of action. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court as also this Court that albeit the law of limitation does not attract to laying of petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India yet the doctrine of laches does. The said doctrine warrants approaching an appropriate forum for relief against an aggrievement within reasonable time. That reasonable time in some cases decided by the Apex Court has been construed as the period of limitation provided for under the Limitation Act 1963 with reference to specific causes of action. Whichever way, the petitioner has evidently approached -3- this Court after delay of 18 years purported representations thereagainst notwithstanding to challenge the seniority list dated 17.06.1980. Further counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that the petitioner was subsequently promoted from the post of accountant to that of Accounts officer and also been given the benefit of selection grade as warranted in law. And the petitioner has also superannuated in the year 2011.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as a threshold on the ground of laches.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J.
R.Vaishnav
1.