Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1268
High Court of Delhi
P.K. BHASIN & J.R. MIDHA, JJ.
Deepak Mohan Sethi & Others
Versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd & Another
LPA Nos. 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 318, 319, 320, 321, 326 & 328 of 2013 & CM Nos.7843 & 7899 of 2013
Decided on: 06-05-2014
For the Appellants:Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Sudhir Nandrajog Sr. Advocate, Abhay Kumar, S.N. Choudhri, Anjan Sinha & Ms. Shruti Choudhri, R2, Ms. Anjana Gosain , Pradeep Desodya, D. Rajeshwar Rao, Charanjeet Singh, Vikran Kaushik, Ms. Sonia Sharma, Neeraj Nischal, H.S. Sachdeva, Advocates.
Headnote:
The appellants, erstwhile employees of the respondent, challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches. The appellants had taken voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) of the respondent during the period 2003 to 2006. They filed writ petitions in February, 2013, claiming Time Bound Promotion Scale (TBPS) during the period 1992 to 2000. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions in the present appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, erstwhile employees of the respondent, took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) of the respondent during the period 2003 to 2006. They filed writ petitions in February, 2013, claiming Time Bound Promotion Scale (TBPS) during the period 1992 to 2000. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions in the present appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellants' writ petitions suffered from gross and unexplained delay and laches of more than 12 years and therefore have been rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. That apart, the appellants' claim is not maintainable as they had taken voluntary retirement as back as in 2003 to 2006 without any demur/protest which resulted in cessation of jural relationship. The appellants are guilty of deliberately concealing the most important fact of their having taken voluntary retirement in the writ petitions.
Issues: Whether the appellants' writ petitions suffered from gross and unexplained delay and laches of more than 12 years and therefore have been rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a belated service related claim is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches except in the case of a continuing wrong. However, there is an exception to the above exception namely if the grievance in respect of any order or administrative decision related to or affected several others also and if the opening on the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim would not be entertained. The VRS results in cessation of jural relationship and therefore falls in the last category of exception to an exception.
Final Decision: The appeals, being an abuse of the process of law, are dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- each. The respondent can recover the costs in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.
J.R. Midha, J.
1. The appellants have challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches.
Factual matrix
2. The appellants are the erstwhile employees of the respondent who took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the respondent during the period 2003 to 2006.
3. At the time of opting for VRS, the appellants submitted an application form in which they declared all the relevant particulars including their designation and basic pay on the basis of which the amount paid to them was calculated. The relevant portion of the application form of the appellant in LPA 319/2013 is reproduced here:
“With reference to Office Order No. NDPL/HR/03-04/VSS/01 dt. 29.11.2003, I hereby apply for voluntary separation under the NDPL Voluntary Separation Scheme, 2003. My personal & service particulars are as under:
1 Name Suresh Garg
2 Designation S.E.
3 Employee No. 8925
4 Department & Section : H.O.G. Enforcement (Spl. Cell)
5 Location ‘D’ Block Saraswati Vihar
6 Date of Birth 27.12.1949
7 Age 54 Years
8 Date of Appointment 10.2.1973
9 Experience 30 Years
10 Basic Pay 12,100/-
11 DA 7,139/-
Declaration/Undertaking
I. I hereby declare that I have gone through and fully understood the NDPL Voluntary Separation Scheme and undertake to abide by all terms & conditions of the said Scheme.
II. I also understand that I shall not be eligible for re-employment/re-engagement either in NDPL or any other company or concern belonging to the same management as that of NDPL.
III. I hereby undertake that I shall not withdraw my application for the Voluntary Separation without the approval of competent authority.
I request that my application for voluntary separation may be considered favourably and on acceptance of same, my dues may be settled at the earliest, as per the scheme.” (Emphasis supplied)
4. The respondent accepted the applications of the appellants and paid them the dues on the basis of the designation and pay declared by them.
5. The appellants filed the writ petitions in February, 2013, in which they made a claim with respect to Time Bound Promotion Scale (hereinafter referred to as “TBPS”) during the period 1992 to 2000.
6. The appellants are claiming the TBPS on the basis of the office orders dated 23rd July, 1997 and 21st December, 1999. However, no claim was made by the appellants at the relevant time when the TBPS became due according to the appellants.
7. All the appellants took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short hereinafter referred to as “VRS”) on various dates during 2003 to 2006. However, no claim or demand was made even at the time of accepting the voluntary retirement.
8. From the date of taking VRS upto April/May 2012 also, no claim or demand was made by the appellants to the respondent. The first representation to claim the TBPS was made by the appellants in April/May 2012. The writ petitions were filed in February, 2013.
9. The appellants have not given any explanation whatsoever, either in the writ petition or in the appeal, for the delay in filing the writ petitions. The appellants do not dispute that no claim was made at the relevant time when the TBPS became due; no claim/demand was made at the time of taking VRS; no claim/demand was made from the date of VRS upto April, 2012 and the first representation was made in April, 2012.
10. There is delay of more than 12 years in filing the writ petitions. The computation of the period of delay is as under:
LPA No. Date from which TBPS claimed Date of taking VRS Date of filing writ petition Delay in filing the writ petition
308/2013 25.8.1999 31.12.2003 6/13.2.2013 13 yrs 5 months 12 days
309/2013 24.9.2000 31.12.2003 7/13.2.2013 12 yrs 4 months 14 days
310/2013 4.7.1996 1.1.2004 6/14.2.2013 15 yrs 6 months 14 days (from the date of circular dated 23.7.1997)
312/2013 5.9.1998 31.1.2004 6/14.2.2013 14 yrs 5 months 1 day
313/2013 15.11.1997 31.12.2003 6/13.2.2013 15 yrs 2 months 22 days
318/2013 11.
