Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
However, this exception may not apply in those cases where
the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem
with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated
persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With
such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the
authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly
situated person. Such a situation can occur when the
subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy
W.P.(C) 8931/2014 Page 4 of 8
matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like. On the
other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam
holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the
parties before the Court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out
from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who
want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to
them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer
from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
Shiv Dass vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2007
It is to this limited extent of proper
pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time
barred.... In Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007)
IILLJ212SC , this Court held: The High Court does not
ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary
W.P.(C) 8931/2014 Page 6 of 8
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. 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. 5. To summarise,
normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected
on the ground of delay and laches (where 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 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 re-
opening 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 re-fixation 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 latches/limitation will be applied. In so far as
the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past
period, the principles relating to recurring/successive
wrongs will apply. As a consequence, 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."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 22 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta vs Dr.Rajkumar Agarwal & Anr. : Air 2013 Sc ... on 20 August, 2014
In M.R. Gupta v. Union of India
AIR1996SC669 , the appellant approached the High Court
in 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay
fixation with effect from 1.8.1978. The claim was rejected
as it was raised after 11 years. This Court applied the
principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs and
reversed the decision. This Court held : The appellant's
grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with
the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against
him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each
time he was paid a salary which was not computed in
accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in
service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he
is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong
computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true
that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he
would be entitled to be paid according to the properly
fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation
would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period.
In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery
of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay
which has become time barred would not be recoverable,
but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in
accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing
wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any
other consequential relief claimed by him, such as,
promotion etc., would also be subject to the defence of
laches etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay
fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation
existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other
consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and
the bar of limitation.
1