IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
D. Manickam - Petitioner
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Ors. Respondents
W.P.No.23578 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2022
Delay and Laches - Service Counting - [Junior Secondary Grade Teacher Service Counting] - [No specific act sections referenced] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking service counting for a Junior Secondary Grade Teacher due to unreasonable delay and laches. The court relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to emphasize that delay defeats equity and that writ remedies cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. The court held that the petitioner's stale claim cannot be entertained beyond a reasonable period, and therefore, dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to count his service as a Junior Secondary Grade Teacher from 1967 to 1970 along with his services as a Secondary Grade Teacher from 1971 to 2003 and to refix his pay and grant him all consequential retirement and pensionary benefits. The petitioner retired in 2003 and sent a representation in 2018, after a lapse of 15 years from the date of his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim was highly belated and that the benefits sought for were related to counting the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the year 1967 onwards. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the principles of delay and laches as established by various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's claim for service counting as a Junior Secondary Grade Teacher, after a significant delay, should be entertained by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of delay and laches as established by various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to dismiss the petition, emphasizing that delay defeats equity and that writ remedies cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's stale claim for service counting as a Junior Secondary Grade Teacher cannot be entertained beyond a reasonable period.
ORDER :
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the First Respondent to pass appropriate orders for counting of Petitioner-s service as Junior Secondary Grade Teacher from 23.08.1967 to 31.12.1970 along with his services as Secondary Grade Teacher from 01.01.1971 to 30.09.2003 and to refix his pay in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 23.08.1967 and on the basis revise his Selection Grade pay with effect from 23.08.1977 and to grant him all consequential retirement and pensionary benefits within a limited time frame.
2. The petitioner states that he served as a Junior Secondary Grade Teacher from 23.08.1967 to 31.12.1970. The petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2003 as Tamil Pandit and received all the terminal and pensionary benefits during the relevant point of time. While so, he sent a representation to the 1st respondent/Government on 09.12.2018, after a lapse of 15 years from the date of his retirement, wherein, he has referred the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22817 of 2011 dated 10.10.2011.
3. The said order passed would not provide a cause of action for the petitioner after several years for the purpose of claiming the benefit of counting his services rendered from the year 1967 to 1970.
4. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 73 years. Now, he would be around 76 years. The claim is highly belated and the benefits sought for is to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the year 1967 onwards. Such a stale claim cannot be entertained beyond the reasonable period. The representation itself was sent by the writ petitioner in the year 2018. That being the factum, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief.
5. The principles regarding the delay and latches are settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following judgments:
(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:
(b) In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in [(1975) 1 SCC 152], the Apex Court held as follows:
(c) In the case of SS Balu Vs. State of Kerala, reported in [(2009) 2 SCC 479], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed thus:
Vijay Kumar Kaul Vs. Union of India
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others
Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation
Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Ramgopal
Delay defeats equity, and writ remedies cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of delay and laches in seeking relief after retirement, emphasizing that such claims should be made within a reasonable time and that....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.