Back
30-year delay in filing State ₹1 lakh:
A Costly Delay: Slaps ₹1 Lakh on State for 30-Year Lapse
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of timely compliance with court orders, the has imposed of ₹1,00,000 on the for failing to file a for over 30 years and for not informing the court about the non-compliance with its interim direction.
Justice Garima Prashad, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed the filed by Uma Kant Tripathi challenging the annulment of his temporary appointment as a Class IV employee in the . However, the court severely criticized the state authorities for their prolonged inaction.
The Case: A Temporary Appointment and a Forgotten
The petitioner was appointed as a 'Sahyogi' in , on a purely temporary basis for a period not exceeding 89 days. The appointment was made subject to the post being filled through regular selection. In , the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, annulled the appointment under , and the bank relieved the petitioner from service.
On , the High Court passed an directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and pay him salary. However, according to the petitioner, this direction was never complied with. The court noted that the first affidavit complaining of non-compliance was filed only in , and no steps were taken to enforce the in the intervening years.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner's counsel argued that the was the competent appointing authority and had duly selected the petitioner. It was contended that the Deputy Registrar did not follow the procedure under the proviso to Section 128, which requires the authority to give an opportunity for reconsideration before annulling the resolution.
The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appointment was made by an officer who had no authority to make it, as he was only authorized to "look after" the work of the Secretary after his death. They argued that the appointment was void from its inception and that the temporary nature of the appointment conferred no right to continue.
Court's Reasoning: No Right to Continue Beyond Fixed Tenure
The court examined the terms of the appointment orders, which clearly stated that the appointment was wholly temporary, for 89 days, and terminable . The court held that the petitioner accepted the appointment on those terms and acquired no to continue after the stipulated period.
Even if the procedural objection regarding the lack of hearing under Section 128 was valid, the court noted that setting aside the impugned order would merely revive an appointment that had already expired . The court relied on the judgment in Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel (2012) 9 SCC 310, which held that a need not be issued where it would revive an order that could not be lawfully sustained.
The : A , But Not a Source of
Addressing the non-compliance with the , the court observed that while the respondents were bound to comply with the order, the interim direction could not create a that the petitioner did not possess. The petitioner had not actually worked after and had attained the age of in , making impossible.
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Garima Prashad made several significant observations:
"Nevertheless, an is intended to preserve the subject matter of the proceedings pending final adjudication. It cannot create or enlarge a that the petitioner did not otherwise possess."
"An appointment limited to 89 days cannot form the basis of a claim for salary, pension or other service benefits until the date of merely because the remained pending."
"The State cannot avoid responsibility for this lapse merely because the petitioner has failed to establish his substantive claim. The prolonged delay deprived the Court of timely assistance from the authorities concerned and allowed the issue of compliance with the to remain unresolved until the petitioner had crossed the age of ."
Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed, But Awarded for Laxity
The court dismissed the on merits and discharged the . However, considering the unexplained delay of over three decades in filing the and the failure to bring the non-compliance with the to the court's notice, the court imposed of ₹1,00,000 on the State. Opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were directed to ensure payment to the petitioner within six weeks.
The judgment serves as a reminder that while litigants must establish their claims on legal merits, state authorities cannot escape accountability for procedural lapses that undermine the judicial process.
