Ram Bahadur Mandal vs State Of Bihar Represented Through And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-State..

The brief factual background is that in 1979, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Tube-well operator in the work charged establishment. He

continued to serve in the work charged establishment till 13.04.1985 on which date the work charged services of the petitioner was brought to an end.

It is the petitioner’s case today that this Court in CWJC No. 3450 of 1985 passed and order on 20.09.1985 that those persons, who had been

removed along with the petitioner were entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act and that after giving one month notice, or pay in lieu of

the notice period, their services were required to be terminated afresh after giving them benefits of the back wages which has accrued in the

meantime as they had remained out of work due to an illegal order passed without giving notice or pay in lieu of notice. Further submission is based on

Annexure(s) 8 and 9 of the writ petitions. The said two Annexure(s) are decisions of the State Govt. dated 13.02.1997 and 19.07.1989 which in

accordance with the submissions of the petitioners’ counsel gives the petitioner a right to claim regularization as he had completed the requisite

length of service under the work charge establishment for regularization as contemplated under these two policy decisions.

In so far as the first submission regarding the benefits under order of this Court dated 20.09.1985 in CWJC No. 3450 of 1985, this Court would

observe that the order clearly records a direction in favour of the petitioners of the said writ proceedings. The order was clearly limited to those

petitioner. Petitioner was not a party to the said writ proceedings disposed of on 20.09.1985. He therefore cannot be permitted at such a belated stage

to claim benefits against the State on basis of the order passed therein. Petitioner also cannot be permitted to claim regularization on basis of the

decisions of the Govt. issued long back in 13.02.1997 and 19.07.1989, today in these proceedings instituted on 30.03.2018. Such a claim would be

barred by delay and laches as the petitioner admittedly last served in the work charge establishment till 13.04.1985. The remedy under Article 226 of

the constitution, needless to say is for those who are diligent for their rights. Those who sleep over their rights for such a long period as in the instant

case are precluded from raising such stale claim in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Paragraph nos. 27 and 28 of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors. reported

in (2013) 12 SCC179 is worth mentioning in the instant case as the case is one of gross delay and laches both. The said two paragraphs are being

quoted hereinbelow:-

We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be

unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up

from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not

countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated

these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion.

Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract

the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental

rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the

High Court.â€​

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.