The importance of addressing grievances expeditiously and the impact of delay and laches on seeking relief through writ petitions.

ORDER :

1. The order impugned rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to step up his pay on par with his junior one Mr.Syed Mohideen is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner joined in the services of the Electricity Board as NMR in the year 1955 and thereafter, his services were regularised in the sanctioned post of Assistant Wireman. The petitioner was promoted as Lineman Grade-I and thereafter, retired from service on 31.05.1999.

3. The petitioner states that his junior Mr.Syed Mohideen was promoted as Lineman Grade-I in O.S.S cadre under class III Service Division IX (a) Serial No.35(i) of Madras State Electricity Board Service Regulation by an order dated 03.04.1969. In the said order the name of the writ petitioner was shown in S.No.17 and the name of Mr.Syed Mohideen was mention in S.No.34. However, the said Mr.Syed Mohideen was promoted to the post of Foreman Grade-II with effect from 23.09.1978 by relaxing his educational qualification. The petitioner was promoted as Foreman Grade-II with effect from 05.02.1981.

4. Prima facie, the petitioner admitted that in the cadre of Foreman Grade-II, the petitioner was promoted subsequently after promotion of his junior Mr.Syed Mohideen. Thus, in the cadre of Foreman Grade-II, the petitioner became junior to the said Mr.Syed Mohideen. May that as it be, even in case a promotion of the junior was wrongfully granted or the junior was getting more pay during the relevant point of time, the petitioner ought to have addressed the authorities within a reasonable period of time.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner submitted a representation in the year 1985, which was not considered. However, the fact remains that the said Mr.Syed Mohideen was promoted as Foreman Grade-II with effect from 23.09.1978, but the petitioner was promoted as Foreman Grade-II with effect from 05.02.1981. Therefore, the said Mr.Syed Mohideen cannot be said to be junior in the cadre of Foreman Grade-II, since the said order was not modified or set aside by the competent authorities.

6. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner submitted an application in the year 1985, the said application was not pursued by the petitioner for several years. He was allowed to retire from service on 31.05.1999 and he filed the present writ petition in the year 2019 after a lapse of about 20 years from the date of his retirement.

7. Question arises, whether a writ petition can be entertained after a lapse of 20 years from the date of retirement, for stepping up of the pay of the writ petitioner on par with his junior, while he was in service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the principles of delay and latches in the following judgments.

8. (a) In the case of Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Ramgopal reported in [(2020) SCC Online SC 101], the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

“Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced.”

(b) In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in [(1975) 1 SCC 152], held as follows:

“2. … One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that rel