Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babu Lal Thagele vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 1013 of 2018
Between:-
BABU LAL THAGELE S/O SHRI CHHEDI LAL
THAGELE , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETD. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
FROM OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JABALPUR HOUSE NO.
3116-A, THAGELE NIVAS, I.T.I. CHUNGI NAKA,
KATANGI ROAD, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVENDRA SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPTT. MANTRALAYA , VALLABH BHAWAN,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER/ DIRECTOR, PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION (DPI) GAUTAM NAGAR,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JOINT DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JABALPUR DIVISION (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) II LEKHA
B HAWAN LEKHA BHAWAN JHANSI ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT TREASURY AND ACCOUNT
OFFICER JABALPUR DISTT-JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER JABALPUR
DISTT-JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHRI PREMLAL MESHRAM, PRINCIPAL
GOV.T HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
CHANDANGAWN, (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SHRI HARI SHANKAR PRAJAPATI, PRINCIPAL
GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
BADHAUNI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MUKUND CHOURASIYA, PANEL LAWYER)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.02.10 15:42:29 IST
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by a person who retired after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Assistant Director, Department of Public Instruction, claiming the following reliefs:
"(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner case for its kind perusal.
(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction in the appropriate nature directing to the respondent no. 1 and 2 to give the promotion to the petitioner from 26.06.2010 9in place of 29.08.2011, when the juniors i.e. the respondent no. 7 and 8 were promoted.
(iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction in the appropriate nature directing the respondent no. 1 and 32 to give the arrears of the period of 14 months i.e. 26.06.2010 to 29.08.2011 and accordingly to revise the pension of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
(iv) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed, in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and as well as final disposal.
The grievance of the petitioner as projected by learned counsel Shri Ravendra Shukla is that respondent No.7 and 8 who were junior to the petitioner with seniority position 5627 and 6505, respectively as against the petitioner's seniority position being 5436 in the cadre of Lecturer, were promoted as Principal, Higher Secondary School by order dated 26.06.2010 (Annexure P/7). The petitioner against his supersession kept making repeated representations. The last representation being 20.07.2017 whereafter the petitioner preferred this petition on 11.01.2018 after time gap of about seven years.
The official respondents have filed their return raising preliminary Signature Not Verified objection of delay and laches with which petitioner has approached this SAN Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.10 15:42:29 IST 3 Court.
A bare perusal of para 4 dealing with explanation for delayed approach reveals that the petitioner kept making representations from June-July, 2010 till July, 2017 against his supersession and when no response came from the employer, he approached this Court in January, 2018.
It is trite principle in service jurisprudence that grievance regarding supersession or claim for backdated promotion needs to be raised promptly without any unexplained delay. In case of any delayed approach then the same should be explained satisfactorily with reasons which are attended with bonafide.
It is also settled principle of service jurisprudence that repeated representations do not give fresh cause of action. A cause which has suffered delay and laches and has died its own death due to lapse of a considerable period of time cannot be revived to be raised before a Court of Law.
More so, writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature which ought not to be exercised in favour of a person who is a sleeping litigant. Petitioner having failed to approach this Court within a reasonable period of time soon after arising of cause of supersession has allowed his cause to die it's own death due to lapse of time. The writ court cannot thus assist an indolent litigant who is not vigilant about his right.
Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed as suffered from delay and laches.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE YS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.10 15:42:29 IST