IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inordinate delay in seeking legal remedy, especially in service-related claims, can bar relief, and that the doctrine of delay and laches is a critical consideration in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C. J.

I.A No. 11166 of 2023 in L.P.A No.575 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 63 days in preferring L.P.A No. 575 of 2023.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 63 days and, accordingly, I.A No. 11166 of 2023 is allowed.

I.A No. 11367 of 2023 in L.P.A No. 600 of 2023

3. This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing L.P.A No. 600 of 2023.

4. However, Registry has reported that this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed in time.

5. Accordingly, I.A No. 11367 of 2023 is disposed of.

L.P.A Nos. 462 of 2023, 497 of 2023, 575 of 2023, 580 of 2023, 600 of 2023, 611 of 2023, 619 of 2023, 621 of 2023, 662 of 2023, 663 of 2023, 664 of 2023, 679 of 2023

6. In this batch of Letters Patent Appeals, the grievance raised by the appellants is that the writ Court did not even advert to their grievance that the wrong committed by the respondents in not granting pay-protection to them was a continuing cause of action; and, thereafter, the writ petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

7. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to the pleadings in W.P.(S) No. 1119 of 2023. The appellant was appointed in clerical grade-IV in 1977. Later, having passed the written test conducted in 1982 the appellant was appointed as Correspondence Clerk on 22nd February 1983. He claims that he passed the departmental examination on 30th September 1989 and promoted in the rank of Head Clerk vide Office Order No. 1381 dated 8th August 2007. According to the appellant, he was getting Rs. 21,890/- while working as Correspondence Clerk till 31st March 2004 but on being promoted as Head Clerk his pay was reduced and fixed to Rs. 20,030/- in contravention of Rule 78(a)(i) of the Jharkhand Service Code.

8. Rule 78(a)(i) of the Jharkhand Service Code provides as under:

“(i) when appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purposes of Rule 89) than those attaching to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time-scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post.”

9. WP(S) No. 1119 of 2023 filed by the appellant was based on the decision rendered on 8th February 2013 in the case of “Ishwari Prasad Mandal” wherein it was held that disallowing the benefit of three advance increments on promotion shall violate Rule 78(a)(i) and that this decision has attained finality. However, we find that except stating that “Ishwari Prasad Mandal was granted all consequential benefits” the appellants have not said a word for not raising the grievance after 31st March 2004 till they retired. The appellants have also not offered any reason for the delay in approaching this Court about a decade after their superannuation from service. In these facts, the writ Court referred to the decisions in “Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass v. Union of India” AIR 1977 SC 1979, “Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu” (2014) 4 SCC 108, “Union of India” and “M.L. Patil (Dead)”and formed an opinion that the writ petitions filed by the appellants were liable to be dismissed.

10. Assailing the action of the respondents in not counting three advance increments while fixing pay-scale of the appellants, Mr. Ninpun Bakshi, the learned counsel for the appellants refers to the judgments in “Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation” 2022 SCC OnLine SC 641, “M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.” (1995) 5 SCC 628, “Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh” (2008) 8 SCC 648, “M. L. Patil (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. State of Goa & Anr.”