IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and latches in approaching the court can lead to the dismissal of a petition, as discussed in various legal provisions and precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. The pertinent question in the present writ petition before this Court is whether the petitioners should be non-suited on the ground of delay and latches itself, as they approach the Court belatedly after sleeping over their right for a considerable period of time.

2. The brief facts are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioners are serving with respondent No.3 - Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute, which is an autonomous body of the Government of Gujarat registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute is cent-percent grant-in-aid institute getting grants from the Labour & Employment Department of the Government of Gujarat. Its administrative head is a senior IAS officer deputed by the State of Gujarat.

2.2. It was the case of the petitioners that the rules, regulations and pay-scales applicable to the employees of the State of Gujarat are applicable to Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute. Accordingly, they have received pay-scales as per 7th Pay Commission. As far as their Pension Scheme is concerned, the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 run by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization governs the employees of the Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute.

2.3. It was further case of the petitioners that they should be given the same pension and under the same rules and regulations, which governed the employees of Government of Gujarat. To remove this anomaly, a detailed proposal was made to the Principal Secretary, Labour & Employment Department, Government of Gujarat seeking to convert the Pension Scheme. The proposal was turned down by the State. Again the matter was persuaded by the Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute with a request to re-consider the proposal. The Government of Gujarat, by way of a communication dated 21.04.2003, asked for certain details such as the proposed total financial burden etc. The State Government declined the proposal for the Pension Scheme vide communication dated 20.09.2003. This communication is impugned in the present petition filed in the year 2018.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Mrs. Krishna G. Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the employees of the institute have been carrying out detailed correspondence since 1988 to apply the Pension Scheme of the Government Employees to the institute. Even the Director of the institute has made the recommendation of applicability of such Pension Scheme. It was further submitted that similarly situated institutes are being approved of the Pension Scheme since in the year 1997. It was brought to the notice of the State Authority in the year 2002. However, by way of impugned communication dated 20.09.2003 authorities had rejected the representation of the institute. It was further submitted that though the representation was turned down vide impugned communication dated 02.09.2003, the petitioners had never received such communication. In wake of such submission, she has requested to allow the petition and grant Pension Scheme which is applicable to the employees of the State Government viz a viz the petitioners who were employees of the institute. Mrs. Rawal, learned advocate has relied on an order passed by this Court in the case of Samaj Suraksha Khata Manya Swaichhik Sanstha Employees versus State of Gujarat and others passed in Special Civil Applications No. 2321/2004 and 10209/2014.

5. Per contra, Ms. Roshani Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. Relying on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Authority, it has been submitted that the preliminary objection raised against the petition is that the petitioners have made a representation way back in the year 2003 and the same was rejected by way of impugned communication dated 20.09.2003. The petitioners had never challenged the same and accepted it. Now after a span of 15 years, they cannot get out of slu