IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in asserting rights and sympathetic reinstatement may disentitle a petitioner from claiming continuity of service.

JUDGMENT :

(Pranav Trivedi, J.)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assail the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.01.2024 in Special Civil Application No.16450 of 2023 and Special Civil Application No.19240 of 2023. Since both the appeals have common issue, we are taking both the appeals for adjudication. For understanding the facts, we are taking facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.503 of 2024 as lead matter.

2. The prayer, as prayed by the appellant – original petitioner in the writ petition was for seeking direction to extend the benefit of continuity in service from the date of termination till the reinstatement on 10.05.2023.

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments made by both the parties rejected the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. This order is under challenge in the present appeal.

4. The factual matrix which led to filing of the writ petition was that the petitioner got enrolled as Rojamdar – daily wager with the respondent Forest Department in the year 1999. Pursuant to the work done by the petitioner he was paid wages in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948. In the year 2015, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being Special Civil Application No.3895 of 2015 and other allied matters seeking benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. This Hon’ble Court passed an order to consider the case of the petitioner and other petitioners for grant of benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 vis-a-vis Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

5. Pursuant to the directions given by this Hon’ble Court, the representations of the petitioner and other allied workers were considered. By way of an order dated 18.06.2015 the authorities not only rejected the claim of the petitioner for getting the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 but also removed the petitioner from service i.e. terminated the services. This order remained unchallenged for almost eight years.

6. In the year 2023 i.e. almost after 8 years of order of termination dated 18.06.2015, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2856 and other allied matters. The learned Single Judge insofar as granting the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 thought it fit that at least the benefit of Government Resolution had accrued in favour of the petitioner till the date of termination. This observation was based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation Versus Management of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in 1985 4 SCC 71. It was also observed that the State had legitimate right to oppose the petition insofar as the aspect of termination is considered more particularly on the ground of delay. It was also observed that learned advocate for the petitioner had made consensus that to balance the equities, any condition that may be deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble Court may be imposed by the Hon’ble Court and the petitioner may be granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In such factual scenario, the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were extended till the date of termination of services i.e. till 18.06.2015. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that petitioner shall not be entitled for any interest. Upon instructions of learned advocate for the petitioner, even the claim of back-wages was forgone. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that pursuant to delay of almost 8 years there would not be legitimate right of the petitioner to claim reinstatement, however, the State, if deemed fit, may consider reinstatement sympathetically. For perusal, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applic