Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 616
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Ashok Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11064 of 2020
Decided On : 10-08-2020
Jitendra Sharma, Advocate, Vijay Sundaram, Advocate
Approaching the court expeditiously for relief and not allowing stale claims to unsettle settled matters.
Headnote:
Delay and Laches - Promotion Dispute - Article 226 - [Article 226, Constitution of India] - The court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, emphasizing the importance of approaching the court expeditiously for relief and not allowing stale claims to unsettle settled matters. The court cited various precedents to support its decision, highlighting the need for enforcing the equality clause in legality and not illegality, and the requirement for claiming equity within a reasonable time.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order promoting juniors over him and grant him promotion with consequential benefits. The petitioner claimed that the juniors were promoted despite being junior to him and that he was entitled to promotion based on his excellent performance ratings. The court considered the delay in filing the petition and the petitioner's knowledge of the promotion of his juniors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was aware of the promotion of his juniors in 2016 but did not take any action, and after more than 4 years, sought to unsettle the matter. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, stating that the stale and old case cannot be reopened to unsettle the things.
Issues: Delay in filing the petition, knowledge of the promotion of juniors, and the petitioner's explanation for not challenging the promotion earlier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for approaching the court expeditiously for relief and not allowing stale claims to unsettle settled matters. It cited various precedents to support its decision, highlighting the requirement for claiming equity within a reasonable time and enforcing the equality clause in legality.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of Delay and Laches.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :
1. That, the impugned order dated contained in Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed or the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct Review DPC and grant promotion to the petitioner from a day before the promotion of the respondents no. 3 to 7 along with all consequential benefits including senior, over and above to the respondents no. 3 to 7 and ancillary benefits, in the interest of justice.
2. Any other order or directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favor of the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents no.3 to 7 were junior to him, but still they have been promoted from the post of Sub-Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer by order dated 22-1- 2016.
3. Clause 4 of the writ petition reads as under :
4. Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation thereof
That, the petitioner declares that the facts with regard to impugned action on part of the respondents promoting the juniors to the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 dated 22-1-2016 have been brought in to the knowledge of the petitioner by persual of the gradation list dated 2-3-2020 circulated by the department. As such, there is no delay in filing the present petition.
4. Similarly in para 5(5) of the Writ petition it has been mentioned as under :
5) That, even though the petitioner was entitled for considering his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on both the criteria as his ACRs for the period from 2007 to 2014 are 'excellent', yet the respondents have superseded the petitioner promoting the respondents no. 3 to 7 vide order Annexure P/1, about which the petitioner came to know after perusal of the gradation list of Assistant Engineers published by the respondents on 2.3.2020......
5. Thus, in order to show that the petition doesnot suffer from delay and laches, the contention of the petitioner is that he came to know about his supersession only after the publication of gradation list of Asstt. Engineers.
6. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner on the question of delay and laches.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivasway Vs. State of Tami Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held as under :
"2. ... A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K, (2009) 15 SCC 321 has held as under :
11. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that keeping in view the equal protection clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also Article 16 thereof, all the employees should be treated equally. Equality clause, however, must be enforced in legality and not illegality.
12. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that Article 14 is a positive concept. The Constitution does not envisage enforcement of the equali
