Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Anil Kumar S/O Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma on 7 October, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About
40 Years, R/o 9A, Shri Jagdishpuri, Heerapura, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur (Raj.) Presently Posted As Constable (Belt
No. 7014) At District Training Centre, Jaipur South, Police
Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Ghasi Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
Presently Working As Assistant Sub Inspector At Reserve
Police Line, Police Commissionerate Jaipur R/o Village
Jhanjhar, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 931/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Dhukal Ram S/o Shri Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Jaita Ki Dhani, Post Solo, Tehsil And Police Station Khandela, District Sikar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6979) At Police Station , Karni Vihar, Jaipur West, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub-Inspector Licencing (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (2 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur, R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1049/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Uday Singh S/o Shri Late Ratan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Puraharlal, Tehsil And Thana Bayana, District Bharatpur. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6294) At Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Ghasi Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Working As Assistant Sub Inspector At Reserve Police Line, Police Commissionerate Jaipur, R/o Village Jhanjhar, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1043/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Prem Prakash S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Dhafalpura, Post Gola Ka Bas, Tehsil Rajgarh, Police Station Tehla, District Alwar Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6033 At Technical Branch, Police (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (3 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Jay Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, aged about 45 years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, R/o Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1050/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Satyendra Kumar S/o Shri Sita Ram Dangi, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bibasar, Police Station Sadar, District Jhunjhunu. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 1039) At Police Station Vidhyak Puri, Jaipur South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Ghasi Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Working As Assistant Sub Inspector At Reserve Police Line, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur, R/o Village Jhanjhar, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1051/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Satyaveer Singh S/o Shri Hetram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Naharkhera, Post Khanpur Ahir, District Alwar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (4 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] 6031) At Technical Branch, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Jai Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, Resident Of Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1053/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Sajad Ahmed S/o Liyakat Ali Khan, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Jajod, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 915) At Licensing Branch, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub- Inspector Licencing Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur, R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1056/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Hempal Singh S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of 109, Bhagat Ji Ki Dhani Ke Peeche, Bhawani Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur. Presently Posted As (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (5 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] Constable (Belt No. 7049) At Office Dcp South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Jai Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, R/o Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1057/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Sultana Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 21A, Shri Jagdishpuri, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6217) At Technical Branch, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub-Inspector Licencing Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1065/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellants Versus
1. Mohammad Hussain S/o Yusuf Khan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 100, Raghunathpuri, Kalwar Road, Ps Jhotwara Road, Presently Posted As Constable (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (6 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] (Belt No. 1125) At Official Additional Dcp 2Nd North, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Sanwarmal S/o Bhagwanram, Aged About 47 Years, Present Working As Assistant Sub-Inspector Licencing Branch Police Commissionerate Jaipur R/o Village Somthadiya, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1067/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Lal Kothi Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur
4. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur
----Appellants Versus
1. Shankar Lal S/o Late Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Sargoth, Dhani Pipalya Wali, Ps Ringus, District Sikar. Presently Posted As Constable (Belt No. 6008) At District Training Centre, Jaipur South, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
2. Jay Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted As Head Constable No. 517, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur North, R/o Plot No. 47, Rani Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mahrishi, AAG with Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Mr. Udit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Counsel with Mr. Shobit Tiwari, Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar, Mr. Rohit Tiwari HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (7 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] Per Honb'le Sameer Jain, J :-
Reserved on - 25/07/2023 Pronounced on - 07/10/2023
1. In the present batch of appeals, the scope of the controversy involved is identical. Therefore, considering the fact that the appeals warrant adjudication on common question(s) of law, with consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1055/2022 titled as The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar and Ors., is being taken up as the lead case.
2. The instant appeal is filed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India whereby a challenge is made to the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5385/2021 titled as 'State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.' whereby the writ petition was disposed of with certain modification(s) in the order impugned dated 18.09.2020 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
3. The ineluctable factual matrix, necessary for discerning the nuances of the contentions made in the present appeal, are as follows:
3/1. That respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar, was initially appointed as Constable in Jaipur City, but was assigned seniority below the respondent no.2 herein, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, who was transferred to Jaipur City, on his own request from District Pali and who, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (8 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] indisputably, joined services at Jaipur City after the joining of respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar.
3/2. Being aggrieved of the purported error in ascertaining the seniority and the consequential promotion of the officers by the State, respondent no.1 approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'Tribunal'), claiming seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits.
3/3. That the learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'Rules of 1989'), which provide that the person transferred to another District shall be ranked junior most in the particular rank in the District to which he is transferred, vide order dated 18.09.2020, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 herein, and awarded in his favour all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion.
3/4. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-State filed a writ petition assailing the order dated 18.09.2020. While adjudicating upon the merits of the case, vide impugned order dated 17.11.2021, learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Tribunal, whilst modifying the same to the extent of substituting the monetary consequential benefits so awarded, with notional benefits only. Aside from the said modification, the award of seniority and promotion was maintained by the learned Single Judge, by concurring with the rationale adopted by the Tribunal and placing reliance upon Rule 36 of the Rules of 1989.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (9 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] 3/5. As a result, being dissatisfied with the order dated 17.11.2021, the appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rajesh Mahrishi, appearing on behalf of the State, has at the very outset contended that the impugned order dated 17.11.2021 has been passed in contravention and/or non-consideration of material aspects, capable of pursuing the court for arriving at a contradictory finding. In this regard, it was argued that the preliminary objection raised by the State before the learned Tribunal, qua delay and laches, on part of the respondent no.1-Mr Anil Kumar in approaching the Tribunal, was not duly and/or adequately considered by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 18.09.2020. Thereafter, even the learned Single Judge while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, failed to consider the aspect of substantial delay on part of the respondent no.1 in approaching the Tribunal. As a result, a palpable error crept in the impugned orders dated 17.11.2021 as well as 18.09.2020.
5. In order to substantiate upon the aspect of delay and laches, learned AAG argued that respondent no.1 approached the learned Tribunal in the Year 2019 for raising a challenge against the Seniority List which was prepared in the Year 1997-1998, thereby, resulting in a delay of over 20 years. Furthermore, it was also contended that as per the prevailing Rules of 1989, prior to the release of the final Seniority List, a provisional Seniority List is published and objections from the affected candidates are invited. The respondent no.1 did not raise any objections as against the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (10 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] provisional Seniority List and thereafter, at this stage, pursuant to the lapse of over 20 years, raised his grievance qua the Seniority List in the Year 2019. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent no.1 is reflective of persistent inaction and/or lethargy on his part, resulting into his claim being barred by delay and laches, aside from being nullity upon its adjudication on merits as well. In support of the aforementioned arguments, reliance was placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Union of India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation: Civil Appeal No. 4134/2022.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.K. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, has submitted that the order(s) impugned are well reasoned speaking orders, passed in accordance with law and after having duly considered the contentions raised by both the sides. Therefore, the order(s) impugned do not call for any interference of this Court. However, in order to refute the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-State, Mr. Sharma submitted that as per Rule 3.6 of the Rajasthan Police Manual and the Standing Order No. 03/2021, the Police Department is under a legal requirement to publish the Seniority List in a prescribed format. However, the appellant-State failed to comply with the said legal requirement and escaped from their duty to publish the said Seniority List. It was contended that the aim of publishing the Seniority List in a prescribed format is to get the same within the knowledge of the uniformed officers, with an understanding to provide them with the requisite information (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (11 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] qua their date of posting in the present district, which is quintessential for determining seniority. However, in the absence of the said Seniority List coming into the knowledge of the respondent no.1, he could not have taken the appropriate legal recourse at the desired stage.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the promotional exam for the post of Head Constable Vacancy for the Year 2010- 2011 was convened in the Year 2015 and prior thereto, a provisional Seniority List was published in January 2015. In the said list, the respondent no.1 was assigned seniority at No. 3650. Therefore, a mere perusal of the aforementioned Seniority List did not provide any conclusion regarding the parent district of the constables and the date from which they have been posted due to transfer in Jaipur District, as is essential in determining seniority. In such circumstances, respondent no.1 was not able to conclude that there were many constables, who of their own volition, had been transferred to Jaipur District and had been erroneously assigned seniority from the date of their initial appointment. As a result, such constables, as referred above, were erroneously placed over and above the respondent no.1, in terms of seniority. It was submitted that only when respondent no.1 participated in the Head Constable Promotional Examination for the Year 2010- 2011 conducted in the Year 2015, and several discussions were underway with fellow officers/constables, that he came to know about the fact that many constables, who were transferred to Jaipur District (after the appointment of respondent no.1), were assigned seniority over and above him.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (12 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]
8. Thereafter, without any delay, respondent no.1 took the appropriate recourse and raised his grievance before the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise, on merits, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Rules of 1989 do not contain any provision of transfer of a Constable from one district to another district. The said aspect has been rightly examined by this Court in Subhash Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. CWP No. 10353/2021, wherein it was held that under no circumstances, Constables could be transferred outside of their district. Moreover, in the absence of any provisions qua the transfer of a constable outside the district, same if permitted is entirely illegal. Nevertheless, it was contended that if in such an eventuality, a transfer is erroneously permitted, then the general service rules shall prevail i.e. list of seniority and placement shall be at the bottom of the list of the district/cadre. Therefore, it was argued that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, correctly placed reliance upon Rule 36 of the Rules of 1989. In support of the arguments made herein-above, reliance was also placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Bach Raj Soni vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5698 and 7068 of 2000.
9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the appeal and perused the judgments cited at Bar.
10. In order to methodically address and adjudicate upon the controversy involved in the present appeal, this Court deems it (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (13 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] appropriate to partition its findings on each of the pertinent contentions raised herein-above. At the outset, this Court shall adjudicate upon the contention raised by the appellant-State with regards to the aspect of delay and laches on part of the respondent no.1 in approaching the learned Tribunal and whether or not, adequate consideration was awarded to the said aspect, by both the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, whilst passing the orders dated 18.09.2020 and 17.11.2021 respectively. Thereafter, subject to the findings on delay, this Court shall deal with the purported error alleged to have crept in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on merits. On Delay and Laches
11. Having perused through the record of the instant appeal, the facts as enumerated below, have duly materialized:-
11/1. That as per the reply annexed with the instant appeal, as submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.1, it is an admitted fact that respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar, participated in the Head Constable Promotional Exam conducted in the Year 2015. Moreover, pursuant to several discussions with fellow Constables during the said examination, the respondent no.1 admittedly gathered knowledge about the fact that there were many Constables, who had transferred to Jaipur District, pursuant to the appointment of respondent no.1 himself, but who were assigned seniority over and above him.
11/2. That as per the Rajasthan Police Manual of Departmental Instructions, 2001, the Force Branch is instructed to undertake a very nominal role in a fixed proforma, whilst taking (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (14 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] note of the relevant information qua the Constables in the force.
They are required to take note of the following information only:
(i) Serial Number (ii) Name and Father's Name of the Constable/Officer (iii) Belt Number (iv) Caste (v) Date of Birth (vi) Permanent place of residence including name of village, police station and district (vii) Educational Qualifications (viii) Date of first appointment (ix) Name of the department of first appointment (x) Details of training along with name of training, place of training, periodicity and result of training (xi) Date of promotion along with rank of promotion (xii) Date of confirmation on the higher post along with designation of the higher post (xiii) Date of superannuation (xiv) Date of posting to the present district (xv) Remark.
11/3. That as per the application/form filled by the respondent no.1 himself on 05.01.2015, qua the Head Constable Promotional Exam for the Year 2010-2011, it is made clear that respondent no.1 had duly filled in the relevant entries, as noted above, of his own knowledge and volition, after having perused and/or analyzed the entire record qua the Seniority List, pursuant to which, he had also penned down his signature thereto. It is also relevant to note that in the said application/form, the respondent no.1 had not raised any dispute/objection qua his seniority. For reference, the said application/form is marked as 'Annexure R/1- 2'.
11/4. That as per the application/form filled by the respondent no.1 himself for the Head Constable Promotional Examination for the Year 2011-2012, it is made clear that for the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (15 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] first time an objection was raised by the respondent no.1 with regards to his seniority on 24.09.2015. For reference, the said application/form is marked as 'Annexure R/1-2. 11/5. That subsequent to the objection so raised on 24.09.2015, respondent no.1 approached the learned Tribunal in the Year 2019.
12. Thus, taking note of the established and/or admitted facts as enumerated herein-above, it is made abundantly clear that respondent no.1 had acquired absolute and unscathed knowledge regarding his own position in the Seniority List as well as that of his fellow Constables in the Year 2015 itself. However, despite the same, respondent no.1 approached the learned Tribunal for the first time in the Year 2019, after a prolonged lapse of four years. Therefore, under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, ought to have taken note of the delay on part of the respondent no.1 in raising his grievance at a belated stage.
13. On the aspect of delay, it is pertinent to take note of the settled position of the law, insofar as it dictates that the doctrine of delay and laches must not be lightly brushed aside by the Courts. It is indispensable for a writ court to juxtapose the explanation offered by the defaulting party qua the delay, alongside the plausible acceptability of the same, in order satisfy itself for granting indulgence in the matter. The Court must bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (16 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under a legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances, delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances, inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the said dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and Union of India and Ors. vs. N. Murugesan reported in (2022) 2 SCC
45.
14. As a result, when a writ court is faced with the dilemma of granting indulgence to a delayed lis before it, consideration must duly be afforded to the plausibility of belated court interference causing confusion and public inconvenience, which may very well give rise to new injustices accruing to third parties, who did not anticipate obtrusion of their rights, which were secured for a considerable period of time. Moreover, while the law of limitation does not by statute apply to writ petitions, a constitutional court must exercise caution as the doctrine of delay and laches is (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (17 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] applied with the aim of securing the quiet of the community, especially that of the third parties. If we lose sight of the fact that there must be a constrained and/or limited lifespan during which a person must approach the court for their remedy, there would be an unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the third parties. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that granting indulgence at a belated stage could substantially affect the rights of numerous third parties i.e. Constables of the force, in large numbers, whose promotion and/or seniority had already been crystallized.
15. In support of the observations made herein-above, reliance can also be placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak (Supra) and Tarsem Singh (Supra). In Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak (Supra), it was held as under:
"11. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, while referring to the decision in Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and Others, quoted the following passages from the latter decision:
8. 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.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (18 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022]
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. 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."
In Tarsem Singh (supra), reference was also made to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the following passage from Balkrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare and Others v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan and Others, which had explained the concept of continuing wrong in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908, corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 observing that:
"31. It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury.
Accordingly, in Tarsem Singh (supra) it has been held that principles underlying 'continuing wrongs' and 'recurring/successive wrongs' have been applied to service law disputes. A 'continuing wrong' refers to single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. 'Recurring/successive wrongs' are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. Having held so, this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) had further elucidated some exceptions to the aforesaid rule in the following words.
"To summarize, normally a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (whereby remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (19 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc, affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
16. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the learned Single Judge, while adjudicating upon the lis before it, should have awarded due consideration to the doctrine of delay and laches, on part of respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar, in raising his grievance with a substantial delay of four years, despite being aware of the position of the Seniority List and having accepted the same for a prolonged period of four years. Though there is no time limit specified under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for filing a petition before the appropriate authorities, however, relying upon the principles of reasonability and promptness, the respondents ought to have been prompt in raising their grievance and should not have sit tight over the matter for a considerably long period of time. Moreover, while passing the impugned order dated 17.11.2021, consideration should have also been afforded to the plausibility of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19412-DB] (20 of 20) [SAW-1055/2022] belated court interference causing confusion and inconvenience, which could potentially give rise to new injustices accruing to the large number of other Constables (third parties), who did not anticipate obtrusion of their rights viz-a-viz promotion and seniority, which were secured/crystallized for a considerable period of time.
17. Therefore, taking cognizance of the established delay on part of respondent no.1 in raising his grievance and the said aspect subsequently missing the considered attention of the learned Single Judge, this Court, without going into the merits of the case but solely on account of delay and laches and having relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex as enunciated in Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak (Supra) and Tarsem Singh (Supra), deems it appropriate to allow the present appeal.
18. As a result, the order impugned dated 17.11.2021 is quashed and set aside.
19. In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
20. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file. (SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ ANIL SHARMA /20-30 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:38:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)