Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 15682
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
NAVINCHANDRA NANALAL JOSHI – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1320 of 2024
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4; MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Service-related claims can be granted despite delays, but arrears are typically restricted to three years prior to the filing date of the writ petition.
Headnote:(A) Letters Patent, 1865 - Appeal against judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 - The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition but restricted arrears to 3 years due to delay in filing - The Apex Court's judgments in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) S.C.C. 648 and Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India, 2007 (9) S.C.C. 274 were cited regarding delay and latches in service-related claims. (Paras 3, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Delay and Laches - The court emphasized that service-related claims based on continuing wrongs can be granted relief despite delays, but arrears are typically restricted to 3 years prior to filing. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against the Single Judge's order allowing a writ petition concerning pension arrears, with the respondent having approached the court after 10 years of retirement.
Findings of Court:
The court clarified that the respondent is entitled to arrears for 3 years prior to the date of filing the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of delay and latches in service-related claims and the appropriate period for which arrears should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the date of filing the writ petition is crucial for determining the period of arrears, restricting it to 3 years prior to the filing date.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. admit. learned advocate mr.joshi (Para 1) |
| 2. the present appeal filed under (Para 2) |
| 3. as such, learned agp is unable (Para 3) |
| 4. learned advocate mr.joshi has very (Para 4) |
| 5. we have heard the learned advocates (Para 5) |
| 6. before we may pass final orders (Para 6) |
| 7. thereafter, in the case of tarsem singh (Para 7) |
| 8. the aforementioned both the judgements (Para 8 , 9) |
| 9. hence, the date of filing of the writ (Para 10 , 11) |
| 10. with this clarification, the present appeal (Para 12) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent , 1865 is directed against the judgement and order dated 04.03.2024 passed in the captioned writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the same.
3. As such, learned AGP is unable to dispute that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court as recorded by the learned Single Judge however, he has submitted that the only concern would be the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.9.3 of the judgement, wherein the learned Single Judge has observed that the original petitioner would be entitled to arrears only since he has approached the Court after 10 years of his retirement and not the interest part. By placing reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh , 2008 (8) S.C.C. 648 and Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India , 2007 (9) S.C.C. 274, he has submitted that the arrears may be restricted for 3 years.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi has very fairly submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) and Shiv Dass (supra).
5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
6. Before we may pass final orders, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass (supra). While dealing with the issue of delay and latches caused in filing the writ petitions challenging termination orders, the Apex Court has held thus:
“10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone.”
7. Thereafter, in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), where the issue pertains to the claim of pension, the Apex Court has held thus:
“5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affec
