Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Pal vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 29 November, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2010 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.11.2012
Tarsem Pal .. Petitioner
versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others .. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Jashan Singh Kohli, Advocate for
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of proficiency step up in the pay scale on completion of 23 years of service from the due date in view of the policy of the respondents.
2. It is a case where the petitioner, who was serving as Clerk with the respondents, retired on 31.3.2005. He had joined the respondent Corporation on 26.3.1965 as Sewadar on temporary basis. Later on he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 20.12.1968 on regular basis. During his service career, he did not raise any dispute about the increments. For the first time, it was made on 28.2.2005, just one month before his retirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed 23 years of his service on 20.12.1991.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner is similar to the petitioner in CWP No. 17270 of 2007 Jasbir Singh vs The Punjab State Electricity Board and others decided on 10.3.2009, whereby he was granted next higher scale on completion of 23 years of service, hence, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.
Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2010 (2)
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a stale claim after his retirement seeking benefit of proficiency step up in the pay scale on completion of 23 years of service from the due date. He had completed 23 years of service on 20.12.1991. The petitioner retired after rendering 40 years of service raising no finger. He thought of raising the issue by filing a writ petition in this court in the year 2010. The petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is situated similar to the petitioner in Jasbir Singh' s case (supra), whereby he was granted next higher scale on completion of 23 years of service, cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner therein retired from service on 28.2.2007 and had filed the writ petition in this court 12.11.2007, whereas the present petitioner who retired on 31.3.2005, has filed the writ petition on 6.8.2010 i.e. after more than five years of his retirement.
7. Before this court proceeds to deal with the merits of the controversy, the issue regarding delay, which is quite material, is required to be considered. As is evident from the facts, which have been referred above, the petitioner in the present case served the department for 40 years, i.e., from 1965 to 2005, but never raised a finger about the benefits granted to him. Even during his service career, certain employees had filed writ petition disputing the benefits granted to them. For the first time, the petitioner in the present case sought to raise the issue after the judgment was delivered by this court in Jasbir Singh's case (supra).
8. The issue regarding delay in invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U. P. Jal Nigam and another vs Jaswant Singh and another, (2006) 11 SCC 464. It was a case in which certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years but should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. They were still in service when Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2010 (3) the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed. Placing reliance upon that judgment, some of the employees, who already stood retired, filed writ petitions claiming same benefit. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment. The judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds vs Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356; State of Karnataka vs S. M. Kotrayya, (1996) 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal vs State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347, it was opined that the persons who approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below:
"5. So far as the principal issue is concerned, that has been settled by this court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition. But the only question is grant of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge their reitrement and accepted the same but filed writ petitions after the judgment of this court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik, (2005) 13 SCC
300. Whether they are entitled to same relief or not?
Therefore, a serious question that arises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post-retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this court?
6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2010 (4) his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their reitrement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30.6.2005 and 31.7.2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not?
xx xx xx
16. Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others."
[Emphasis supplied] Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2010 (5)
9. In A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others, (2007) 2 SCC 725 as well, same issue was considered and following the earlier judgment in U. P. Jal Nigam's case (supra), it was opined as under:
"40. The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief. (See Chairman, U. P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464). (Emphasis supplied)
10. The same view was expressed by this court in CWP No. 18498 of 2011 Bal Krishan vs State of Punjab and others decided on 4.9.2012.
11. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been clearly laid down that discretionary relief in a writ jurisdiction is available to a party who is alive of his rights and enforces the same in court within reasonable time. The judgment in another case does not give a cause of action to file a writ petition at a belated stage seeking the same relief. Such petitions can be dismissed on account of delay and laches. As has already been noticed above in the present case as well, the petitioner joined service in the year 1965 and retired in the year 2005, but raised the issue regarding benefit of proficiency step up in the pay scale on completion of 23 years of service from the due date more than five years after his retirement referring to a judgment of this court and filed the petition claiming the same relief.
12. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2005 and the claim pertaining to the benefit of proficiency step up, which may be admissible to the petitioner during his service career, was sought to be raised more than five years after his retirement, the claim made at such a late stage deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only. The petitioner could Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2010 (6) raise a grievance about the pay scales admissible to him or the last pay drawn by him within a reasonable time after his retirement. He cannot be permitted to raise the same at any time on the plea that the same is recurring cause of action.
13. Considering the enunciation of law, as referred to above, in my opinion, the petitioner herein is not entitled to the relief prayed for and the petition deserves to be dismissed merely on account of delay and laches.
14. Ordered accordingly.
29.11.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge