The Gauhati High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of salary claims by teachers alleging failure to provincialise their venture school, noting their inordinate delay of over 20 years and failure to explain the hiatus before similarly situated persons obtained relief.
The present writ appeal is dismissed.
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.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010007752021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/29/2021
2: SMTI. ANUPROVA DEY W/O- DIPAK MAZUMDAR ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI DURGA M.E. SCHOOL PARBOTIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 ASSAM.
3: SMTI. ELI BURAGOHAIN
ASSISTANT TEACHER RAMESWAR M.E. SCHOOL DIST.- TINSUKIA P.O. TALAP PIN- 786156 ASSAM.
4: SMTI. SIBANI DUTTA W/O- SHRI MORAM DHAR
ASSISTANT TEACHER RAMESWAR M.E. SCHOOL DIST.- TINSUKIA P.O. TALAP
VERSUS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 ASSAM
3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CHALIHA NAGAR TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 78615.
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 78615
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M CHANDA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU
- B E F O R E - HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
ORDER
Date : 05-03-2021 (Sudhanshu Dhulia , CJ)
Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. J. Khatanier, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners before this Court were earlier teachers in a venture school which was subsequently provincialised. They claimed their salary between 1996 to 1999 and, thereafter, from 1999 to 2005. Their claim had been rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.09.2020, passed in WP(C) 3016/2020, inter-alia for the reason that it was an extremely old matter. It is to be noticed that the petitioners did not file any writ petition for redressal of their grievances immediately but it was filed after a period of more than 20 years. The petitioners claimed salary for the period from 1996 to 2006 in two parts: for the period 1996 to 1999 and the other part is from 1999 to 2005. The only reason assigned by the petitioners/writ appellants before this Court is that some similarly situated persons had approached this Court by means of a WP(C) 1869/2006 and their writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.05.2013. It is contended that the present petitioners’ case is exactly on the similar footing as the petitioners in that writ petition. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the case on the ground that it is an extremely
Page No.# 3/3
old matter and there is no proper explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. In our view, in any case, the petitioners have not only approached this Court belatedly but also they could not explain the delay in filing the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition has been rightly dismissed. The petitioners have not approached this Court in time. Moreover, they were also fence sitters and were waiting for the outcome of the writ petition [WP(C) 1869/2006] filed by the similarly situated persons. Even after the outcome of the writ petition in the year 2013 they had approached this Court after a period of 7 years and there is absolutely no explanation as to why there was such inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. It is a settled position of law that people who sleep over their rights, court will not come for their rescue.
The learned Single Judge has taken a view which is a plausible view under the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, we are not inclined to disturb the findings of the learned Single Judge.
The present writ appeal is dismissed in the above terms.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ appeal be allow despite very serious delay in filing the petition.
Whether inordinate delay in filing the petition be a valid ground for dismissal of the appeal.
TILOK KONWAR AND 3 ORS.
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
SUDHANSHU DHULIA
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
