The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition seeking regular pay scale for a peon. The Court held that the ten-year delay without adequate explanation operated as laches, precluding relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
s
IN_THE_HQN'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (CHHAmSGARH)
WRIT PETITIONfS) NO.;?^M- /2014
PETITIONER:
k». (v'
e.^WA^' ^
y^^^^
^^"
^
M?"
Guha Ram Miri S/o Sukdeo Miri aged about 46 years, working as Peon, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Pithora, Police Station Pithora, Block Pithora District Mahasamund (C.G.)
versus
Respondents
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, . Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya NevCr Raipur Chhattisgarh.
The Director, Public Insfa-uctions Raipur Division, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. The District Education officer Mahasamund,District Mahasamund (C.G.) The Principal, Govemment Girls Higher Secondary School, Pithora, District Mahasamund
(C.G.)
WRIT PETITIQN_UNDER_AR'nCLE_226_QF_THE CONSTITUTJON OF INDIA
K;-^'*?.^
^'^'^l-A^'i-''^• '^' '^
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fS^ No.3224 of 2014
PETmONER Guha Ram Miri
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh & others
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Present:-. Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on this 15th day of July, 2014)
Heard learned counsel forthe parties.
submitted a representation on 01-11-2013, but the same does not fructify. .
On perusal of the pleadings and the documents appended with the writ petition, it is manifest.that the cause of action arose in August, 2004 i.e. about 10 years back from thedate offiling ofthe present petition.Duringthis period,excepttomakearepresentationin November, 2013 i.e. after 9 years, the petitioner has nottaken any steps forredressal of his grievance.
It is well settled principle of law that the Court is not expected to ( give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rjp Van Winkle'. (See: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v.
T.T. Murali Babu1).
The Supreme Court in the matter of Yunuss (Baboobhai) A Hamid
Padvekarv. State of Maharastrs^ has held that:- '
"Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there . is ; such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party."
In the present case, about 10 years time has been taken by the petitionerand preferredthe presentwrit petitionon10-07-2014 stating in para 7 of the petition that "the petitioner continuously
•(2014) 4SCC 108 2(JT 2009 (3) SC 487)
approaching to the respondent authorities but even after several efforts, the petitioner fails in his efforts lastly after all approaches before this Court for demand ofjustice", but in support of the said contention, the petitioner has not submitted ahy documentary evidence.
In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and, as such, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself 6n the ground of unexplained
delay and laches.
f
//-
Gowri
Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite a delay of approximately ten years in approaching the court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali BabuReferred¶30
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu
Yunuss (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of MaharastrasReferred¶31
Yunuss (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharastrs
Guha Ram Miri
State of Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
