Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 98
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA and S. C. DAS, JJ.
Shri Prasanna Hari Jamatia - Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Tripura and others - Respondents.
W.P.(C) NO. 426 OF 2013
Decided On : 03.03.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. S. S. Debnath, Advocate
For the respondents:Mr.T.D.Majumder, Government Advocate
The doctrine of laches and delay can bar a petition for equitable relief, even if the underlying claim is valid.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Service Reinstatement - Tripura State Rifles - Rule 1984 - Rule 15(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reinstatement in the Tripura State Rifles (TSR) after being discharged from the post of Havildar. The petitioner claimed that the termination was illegal as he was not given an opportunity to be heard and the relevant rule was not applicable to his case. The respondents argued that the petition was barred by delay and laches.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was not confirmed in the post of Havildar and was discharged under Rule 15(3) of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984. However, the Court declined to interfere in the discharge order due to the petitioner's delay and laches. The Court directed the respondents to provide all service benefits to the petitioner for the period he served in the TSR.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the petitioner's discharge, applicability of Rule 15(3) of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984, and the impact of delay and laches on the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's discharge under Rule 15(3) was not justified as he was not on probation. However, the Court declined to interfere due to the petitioner's delay and laches. The Court directed the respondents to provide service benefits to the petitioner for his period of service.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to provide service benefits to the petitioner for his period of service in the TSR.
S.C. Das, J.
By filing this writ petition the petitioner prayed for issuing appropriate writ(s) directing the respondents to reinstate him in the service of Tripura State Rifles (for short ‘TSR’), 2nd Bn in the post of Havildar from which he was discharged by an order dated 16.03.1999, issued by respondent No.4 and also prayed for allowing him all service benefits.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. S. Debnath, for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate, Mr. T. D. Majumder for the Staterespondents.
3. The petitioner in his affidavit,interalia,contended that he joined TSR 1st Bn as a Rifleman on 01.09.1985 and had been serving with all his sincerity and devotion to the satisfaction of his authority. On 01.08.1991 he was promoted to the rank of LNK and thereafter on 12.08.1993 he was further promoted to the rank of NK. Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Havildar in the 1st Bn of TSR on 25.11.1995. On 04.12.1995 he was posted in the 2nd Bn of TSR.
It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.12.1998 he applied to the Commandant 2nd Bn. TSR, R.K.Nagar for granting him five days’ casual leave with permission to leave station for the treatment of his father, who was seriously ill. On 05.12.1998 he left the station with verbal permission from the Station Officer in anticipation of granting of the casual leave. On reaching home he arranged for the treatment of his father, but his father expired on 07.12.1998. On 09.12.1998 he again applied for 27 days’ earned leave w.e.f. 05.12.1998 in cancellation of his earlier prayer of five days’ casual leave and sent his application to the Commandant 2nd Bn TSR by special messenger. On 01.01.1999 he reported for his duties, but he was not allowed to join. He was waiting in the 2nd Bn Headquarters for seven days and attended the office, but he was shown absent. After staying for seven days, he returned home being compelled since his joining was not accepted.
On 16.03.1999 he was terminated from the service by the Commandant 2nd Bn TSR issuing Memo dated 16.03.1999 (AnnexureIV to the writ petition) and before issuance of such termination order, no notice was issued and no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He did not get any warning letter or notice from the authority. The order of discharge was issued invoking the provision of Rule 15(3) of the Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 (for short ‘Rule 1984’) and that rule was not applicable to the case of the petitioner since the petitioner was a regular staff of the TSR and he was not on probation. He was even not given one month’s salary as per the provision of Rule 15(3) ibid. He was wrongly and illegally dismissed/terminated from the job without affording him any opportunity of being heard and so, the order of dismissal is liable to be interfered and set aside.
On 03.06.2013 he made an application before the Director General of Police, Tripura requesting him to reinstate him in the service, but that was not entertained. On 17.10.2013 a notice was issued to the Inspector General of police through his Advocate seeking reinstatement, but that was also refused. It is further contended by the petitioner that since after dismissal from service he was suffering from financial distress and, therefore, he could not approach the Court and recently he was given free legal aid by the learned counsel and thereafter he approached the Court by filing this writ petition seeking the relief as stated herein before.
4. The respondents by filing counter affidavit contended that the writ petition is bad for delay and laches and it is stated that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Because of long delay and laches the post which was vacated due to termination of the petitioner had been filled up by other person and, therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court after lapse of 15 years.
The respondents contended that the petitioner without taking any permissi
