Judgment:
Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 Date of Decision: 30.6.2014 Rajinder Kaur Batish w/o Bharat Bhushan through her Attorney Kamaljit Kaur wife of Ram Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr.G.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as an Auxiliary NuRs.Midwife ( 'ANM' for short) on 20.3.1982.
It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that during her service as ANM, her request for undergoing General Nursing 'A' Grade CouRs.at SBLS Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, for the session starting from July, 1990, was accepted vide order dated 22.6.1990 (Annexure P-2).On completion of the abovesaid training of General Nursing 'A' Grade Course, petitioner became General NuRs.Midwife on 30.4.1993.
Kumar Amit 2014.07.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 2 However, she was not granted the study leave for undergoing the abovesaid training of General Nursing 'A' Grade Course.
Her study period started from 30.6.1990 and ended on 26.6.1992.
She was granted earned leave of 125 days starting from 30.6.1990, half pay leave for 160 days w.e.f.2.11.1990 and leave without pay for 446 days w.e.f 11.4.1991 to 26.6.1992, whereas the petitioner was entitled for study leave, as claimed herein.
When the repeated oral requests of the petitioner were not being attended, she served the respondents by way of legal notice dated 5.8.2013 (Annexure P-3).but no action thereon was taken.
Having been left with no other option, petitioner approached this court by way of present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled for the study leave for the entire period of training of about two years from 30.6.1990 to 26.6.1992.
Since the respondent authorities failed to consider the genuine claim of the petitioner during all this long period of about 24 yeaRs.petitioner has approached this court by way of present writ petition.
He further submits that respondent authorities were duty bound to consider and decide the legal notice Annexure P-3.
However, respondent authorities were sitting tight over the matter and did not take any action on the legal notice.
He prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the legal notice Annexure P-3, granting study leave to the petitioner w.e.f.30.6.1990 to 26.6.1992 and also to pay salary for the abovesaid period alongwith other allowances.
Kumar Amit 2014.07.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 3 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is an admitted position on record that cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the petitioner in the year 1990, when Annexure P-2 dated 22.6.1990 was passed by the competent authority.
As per own pleaded case of the petitioner, she was granted earned leave for 125 days from 30.6.1990 to 1.11.1990.
She was granted half pay leave for 160 days, w.e.f 2.11.1990 to 10.4.1991.
Thereafter, she was granted leave without pay for 446 days, w.e.f.11.4.1991 to 26.6.1992.
It is not even the pleaded or argued case on behalf of the petitioner that she ever lodged any protest, raising her grievance in this regard during all these 24 long yeaRs.before moving her legal notice Annexure P-3 as late as on 5.8.2013.
In such a situation, petitioner has got no case either on facts or in law.
It is also the own pleaded case of the petitioner that she is on ex-India leave and staying abroad.
However, it is not disclosed as to from which date, petitioner is on ex-India leave.
In this regard, petitioner is keeping conveniently silent after 30.4.1993, when she claimed to have become GNM.
The present writ petition has been filed through her attorney.
During the couRs.of hearing, when a pointed question was Kumar Amit 2014.07.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 4 put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not come to the court within a reasonable time, he had no answer and rightly so because it is a matter of record.
Present writ petition suffers from delay and laches and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
If the petitioner was having any genuine cause of action, she would have not taken this inordinate long time of more than 24 years in approaching the court.
As on date, what to talk of the writ petition, even her civil suit would have been time barred.
Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and suffers from delay and laches, because of which it is bound to fail.
The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Bajwa and another versus State of Punjab and otheRs.(1998) 2 SCC523 Union of India and others Vs.A.Durairaj (dead) by LRs.(2010) 14 SCC389 Londhe Prakash Bhagwan versus Dattatraya Eknath Mane and otheRs.2013 (10) SCC627 Government of India and another versus George Philip (2006) 13 SCC1and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others versus T.T.Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC108 The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 16 of the judgment in T.T.Murali Babu's case (supra).which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:- “Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside.
A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offeredKumar andAmitthe 2014.07.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 5 acceptability of the same.
The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction.
As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not.
Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity.
In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court.
Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norMs.namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time”.
and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same.
It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification.
That apart, in the present case, such belated approach Kumar Amit 2014.07.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 6 gains more significance as the respondent- employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health.
We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice.
On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect otheRs.Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality.
A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons – who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’.
In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.”
.
Reverting back to the facts of the present case and respectfully following the law laid down in the cases, referred to hereinabove, it is unhesitatingly held that present writ petition has since been found to be suffering from delay and laches, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
It is so said, because petitioner has woken up from slumber after 24 longs yeaRs.There is no explanation forthcoming for this inordinate long delay.
Kumar Amit 2014.07.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.12086 of 2014 7 No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition is wholly misconceived and without any substance.
Thus, it must fail.
No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE306.2014 AK Sharma Kumar Amit 2014.07.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document