Point of Law: While exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution; delay defeats equity and delay cannot be brushed aside without any plausible explanation.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The petitioner was engaged as a sweeper on daily wage basis in the office of respondent No.2 on 21.7.1997 and worked as such till 24.1.1998. The petitioner gave birth to a child on 18.1.1998 and prior to that she submitted an application on 7.1.1998 for sanctioning of maternity leave, on account of her delivery. However, the leave was not sanctioned and rather the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated. Unfortunately, the petitioner kept mum, for over a decade and eventually approached this Court by way CWP No. 11355 of 2011, which came to be disposed of on 1.1.2013 by passing the following order:

“Petitioner has already made representations for the redressal of his grievance vide Annexures P1 and P2. However, the same have not been decided till date.

2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation made by the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from today. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.”

2. In compliance to the directions passed by this Court, the respondents-Board considered and decided the case of the petitioner and held that since the petitioner had failed to raise her grievance within the reasonable time and, in fact, approached the authorities after 15 years, therefore, her claim was not maintainable at the belated stage.

3. Aggrieved by the consideration order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“i) That the impugned order dated 18.4.2013 (Annexure A-5) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii) That the respondent Board may kindly be directed to reengage/reinstate the applicant in service against the post of daily wage sweeper from the due date with all consequential benefits, since the services of the applicant were terminated intentionally and deliberately on account of her delivery and maternity leaves were not sanctioned and thereafter, junior persons, namely, Kamal Raj, Uma Devi and Revati Ram were engaged and direction of the higher officer dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure A-6) to reinstate the applicant was ignored.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since the decision impugned herein had been taken pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner could not be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case minutely.

6. At the outset, we may notice that the consideration order(Annexure A-5) has been passed by the respondents long time back on 18.4.2013, whereas the instant petition has been filed on 13.7.2018. The writ petition on the face of it is barred by delay and laches, as the cause of action, which accrued to the petitioner was more than 2 ½ decades back.

7. Having gone through the petition, we find that the petitioner has not at all explained the delay in filing the instant petition.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R & M Trust versus Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 91, has held that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; delay defeats equity and delay cannot be brushed aside without any plausible explanation. It is apt to reproduce para 34 of the judgment herein:

“34. There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb the third-party interest created on account of delay. Even otherwise also why should the Court come to the rescue of a person who is not vigilant of his rights?”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others versus Timudurt Oram, 2005 AIR SCW 3715 and Srinivasa Bhat (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. versus A. Sarvothama Kini (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., A