Takeshwar Yadav, Pramod Dehri and Ishwar Chakraborty vs State of Chhattisgarh and others

Hon''ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra J

In the present writ petitions petitioners have claimed reliefs to pass similar order dated 21/10/2008 passed in W.P.S. No. 5894/2008. According to learned counsel petitioners in the respective petition were appointed as second Guruji in the EGS Centre in March 2000 and were terminated in November 2000 and the said termination is illegal as the same was passed in contravention of government policy. He has argued that in W.P. No. 3441/2003, this court passed an order on 13/01/2006 canceling the similar order passed in favour of other persons and in yet another writ petition W.P.S. No. 5894/2008, this court vide order dated 21/10/2008 issued a direction to the petitioners to file a representation. He would thus submit that the petitioners are entitled to similar reliefs for consideration of their representation.

Admittedly, the petitioners services have been terminated by an express order passed on 1/11/2000 (Annexure P-2) however in para 3 of the writ petition, petitioner declares on oath that he is not challenging any specific order but the prayer is for issuance of a direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner. The scheme under which the petitioner was appointed has not been annexed with the writ petition and a declaration has been made in para 5 that there is no other alternative efficacious remedy except to file this writ petition. Yet again in para 7 it has been declared that there is no delay in filing this writ petition.

It is strange when an order of termination has been issued in the year 2000 how can the petitioner declare on oath that there is no delay in filing this writ petition.

There is no explanation much less any justifiable or acceptable explanation that delay in filing the writ petition is bonafide.

In the matter of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, the Supreme Court while dealing with challenge to the tribunal''s order directing for consideration of the representation has observed that "the order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of the respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider the representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complication". It has also been observed that the belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction issued by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the dead issue or time-barred dispute.

In the above matter, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider its earlier decision in the matter of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. and Another, therein reads thus :

The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any "decision" on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex- employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.

In the matter of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij and Another, Hon''ble Supreme Court has refused to consider and has deprecated the casual approach of the High Court in overlooking the delay of 8 years while passing the order considering the claim with regard to promotion after 8 years of accrual of cause of action.

In the matter of S.S. Balu and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that reliefs passed on parity cannot be claimed when the petition suffers from delay and laches.

In the present petitions though an express order of termination has been passed yet the said termination is not under challenge. This court is afraid, when the order of termination is not under challenge how a direction for consideration of representation can be granted and that too after delay of 14/11 years of accrual of cause of action.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matters, this court is of the opinion that instant petitions suffers from unexplained delay and laches, therefore they cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.