Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
W.P.No.3816/2017
Rajesh Chouhan & ors. The State of M.P. & ors.
Indore
03.05.2018
Shri L.C.Patne, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kaustubh Pathak, learned GA for the respondent/State.
The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondent to reinstate them as E.G.S. Guruji, with all consequential and monetary benefits.
According to the petitioner they were appointed on the post of E.G.S. Guruji as per Employment Guarantee Scheme in the year 1997,1998 and 1999. After the appointment they started working on the said post with their best ability. They worked upto 31.7.2000 and thereafter their services have been discontinued without serving any order. Since no order of termination were ever communicated to them, therefore, they did not prefer any appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Some of the similarly situated E.G.S.Gurujis approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in the year 2006 and by order dt. 30.3.2009 W.P. No.1637/2006 (s) was allowed by this Court directing the Government to reinstate them. In compliance of the said order, the CEO Janpad Panchayat Sailana had issued an appointment order dt. 13.5.2010. Meanwhile the petitioners have passed the eligibility test for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak.
One Smt. Madhubala Verma, also filed a Writ Petition No.12273/2010 before this Court. By order dt. 16.3.2012 the writ petition was allowed and order of termination has been quashed with the direction to reinstate her into service as Gurujis. According to the petitioners the State Government preferred an Writ Appeal against the said order and the same has been dismissed. Thereafter SLP was also preferred and same has also been dismissed. Now the petitioner has been reinstated into the service by order dt. 4.7.2016. Now the present petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition in the year 2017 claiming parity and direction for their reinstatement.
The respondent/State has filed the return by raising objection of delay and laches. According to the respondents, the petitioners are seeking reinstatement as E.G.S.Guruji with all consequential and also claiming monetary benefits after the inordinate delay of 17 years from the date of their termination. The respondents have placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court in case of S.S. Balu and another vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479, Jagdish Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 538 and Government of W.B. vs. Tarun K.Roy and others reported in (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Shri Patne, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. C.Lalitha reported in 2006 Vol. 2 SCC 747 in which the Apex Court has held that all the persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. He has further placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Lt.General of Delhi vs. Constable Dharampal reported in AIR 1990 SC 2059 in which the Apex Court has held that similarly situated Constables would be entitled for reinstatement and further consequential benefits even after more than 15 years.
The petitioners were appointed as E.G.S. Gurujis on a fixed amount of honorarium. They were appointed under the Education Guarantee Scheme introduced by the Government of M.P. The scheme was stated w.e.f. 1.1.1997 in order to provide education to the children aged between 6 to 14 years. The intention behind the scheme was to provide atleast primary education to the children residing within the radius of 1 km. Under the Scheme, there is one post of Teacher/Guruji over 40 students. The appointment of the Guruji was not permanent but purely temporary in nature under the Scheme.
Admittedly the petitioners are assailing their order of termination after 17 years. At present the petitioner No.2 is aged about 50 years, petitioner No.5 is aged about 49 years and petitioner No.1,3 and 4 are aged about 39 and 41 years. They are out of the job of teaching since last 17 years. They hardly worked for 3-4 years as Gurujis that too after 20 days of training. Now they cannot perform the duties of Teacher effectively. Now the State Government has discontinued the Scheme.
The Apex Court in case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Pan Singh and Others, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 278 has held as under:
"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. 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 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 "
The Apex Court in case of Regional Manager, A.P.SRTC Vs. N.Satyanarayana & Others, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 210 has held as under:
"10. Even a bare reading of paragraph-18 of the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, it is clear that the relief was moulded to avoid anomalies and in view of the peculiar situation involved. This Court categorically held that the orders impugned in the appeals were not sustainable because the writ petitions were filed after a long lapse of time. Similar is the position here. The regularization was done w.e.f. 1.8.1987 and the writ petitions were filed in the year 1999. That being so and since in the writ petition without any explanation has been offered for the delayed approach, writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches."
The Apex Court in case of S.S.Balu & Another Vs. State of Kerela and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 has held as under:
"18. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. "
The Apex Court in case of Gulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of Jammu Kashmir and Another, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 321 has held as under:
"17. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one. For sufficient or cogent reasons a court may in a given case refuse to exercise its jurisdiction; delay and latches being one of them while considering the question of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner, the Court must also consider the effect thereof"
Recently, coordinate bench of this Court has dismissed the identical Writ Petition No.2202/2015 by order dated 07.04.2015 in the matter of Balkrishna Sharma Vs. state of MP and Others by passing the following order:
The petitioner before this court has filed this present writ petition claiming seniority right from the year 1968 on the post of Lower Division Teacher. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 1994, meaning thereby, he is claiming for seniority after a lapse of twenty years from the date of his retirement. It is true that earlier this Court has passed various orders granting the same relief to large number of individuals, however, the fact remains that issue of delay and latches was not considered in any of the judgment. This Court, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is claiming seniority right from the year 1968 on the post of Upper Division Teacher is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. In the light of the aforesaid, the admission is declined."
The aforesaid view taken by this Court has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1090 of 2017 [Mohanlal Bhatt v/s The State of M.P.] by dismissing the writ appeal vide order dated 23.11.2017.
Therefore, in view of the above, the present petition deserves to be and is, hereby, dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge M.Jilla.
Digitally signed by Maharukh jillaDate: 2018.05.05 11:07:26 +05'30'