Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Hanuman Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 10219 of 2024
Decided On : 06-11-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Regularization of services - Petitioner sought regularization of services from 2001 for pensionary benefits after superannuation in 2024 - Previous writ petitions filed regarding regularization were considered and allowed - Delay of 11 years in seeking relief deemed unexplained - Court dismissed the petition due to laches. (Paras 3, 5, 9)
(B) Delay and Laches - Principles governing delay and laches in service matters discussed - Claim rejected due to significant delay and acceptance of previous regularization order. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner appointed in 1984 as a daily wager, sought regularization after superannuation, claiming rights from 2001. Previous writ petitions addressed regularization but no grievances raised during service.
Findings of Court:
The claim suffers from unexplained delay and laches of 11 years, thus no interference warranted.
Issues: Whether the delay in seeking regularization affects the claim and the validity of the previous regularization order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely claims in service matters and the implications of delay and acquiescence.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to add the services rendered by the petitioner on the daily wages for the purpose of pensionary benefits with all consequential service benefits to the petitioner, in the interest of justice...”
3. It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 1.1.1984 as a Mali on daily wager Group D post in Horticulture Department, Faizabad under the Superintendent, Government Garden. As his services were not regularized despite his working for substantially long length of time, he had approached thsi Court by filing writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 6615 (S/S) of 2004 where by means of an interim order granted on 5.11.2004 the respondents were directed to consider granting him minimum of pay scale and also for regularization within 8 weeks. As the order of the writ Court was not complied, a contempt petition was preferred being Contempt Petition No. 824 (C) of 2005 (Hanuman Singh Vs. Sri Manmohan Sinha, Director, Horticulture) where the proceedings were dropped after recording the statement of the opposite parties that the petitioner shall be paid minimum of pay scale w.e.f. 7.11.2004. The writ petition No. 6615 (S/S) of 2004 was finally allowed by means of order dated 27.5.2013 considering that the petitioner has been working for thirty years, the respondents were directed to create a post in case the same was not available and pass an order regularizing his services within a period of one month. In compliance of the directions of this Court vide order dated 27.5.2013, the respondents by means of order dated 3.11.2013 regularized the services of the petitioner on the post of Mali from the date the said order was passed i.e.23.11.2013. The petitioner continued as a regular employee and finally was superannuated from the services on 30.4.2024.
4. It is only after his superannuation that he started representing against the order of regularization, particularly, with regard to the date of his regularization and representations were submitted on 15.5.2024 and finally the present writ petition has been field seeking a direction that his services deserve to be regularized from 2001 on-wards.
5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the grievances of the petitioner with regard to regularization was already canvassed by him by filing two writ petitions before this Court and this Court had duly considered the claim of the petitioner and allowed his writ petition No. 6615 (S/S) of 2004 by means of judgment and order dated 27.5.2013. It is on the direction of the writ Court that his services were regularized by means of order dated 23.11.2013 and the petitioner continued on the strength of the said order till the date of his superannuation. He never raised any grievance during currency of his services and after lapse of 11 years, he has filed this writ petition. In the aforesaid circumstances it has been submitted that the petitioner himself has accepted the order dated 23.11.2013 and even in the present writ petition he has only sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for consideration of his representation from 2001 on-wards rather than challenging the validity of the order dated 23.11.2013 while the said claim is highly time bared and the petition suffers from unexplained delay and latched of 11 years and accordingly deserves to be dism
Claims for service regularization must be timely; significant delays can render them inadmissible due to laches.
Delay and laches bar service claims, particularly where acquiescence and potential impact on third-party rights are involved.
The court held that claims for service regularization can be barred by delay and laches, and prior service cannot be counted if the employee was illegally terminated and did not meet the required wor....
Belated service claims for pay increments rejected due to unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence; prolonged inaction implies consent, barring relief to uphold administrative finality.
A claim for family pension can be denied if the termination of employment was based on false documents and the challenge to that termination is barred by delay and acquiescence.
Belated post-retirement claim to switch from CPF to GPF pension rejected due to unexplained delay, laches, acquiescence by non-response to 2008 opportunity, and factual distinction from precedents on....
Belated overtime claim by retired conductor, raised eight years post-superannuation, rejected due to unexplained delay, laches, and acquiescence, barring equitable relief in service matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
