H.P. HC dismissed a writ petition seeking promotion to Block Primary Education Officer. The Court held the claim barred by delay, laches, and acquiescence as the petitioner waited 21 years and acted as a fence-sitter.
The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3277 of 2019 Decided on:26.11.2019
Bansi Ram Thakur …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents.
…………………………………………………………………………………… Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For respondents: Mr Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Ms. Ritta Goswami, Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Adarsh Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General, for the respondents.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Notice. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate
General, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been preferred with following
prayer:-
“i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the respondent department may kindly be directed to promote to petitioner as BPEO from the date, when the persons mentioned in Annexure P-1 have been promoted along with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice and fair play.”
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:-
petitioner was due for promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer (BPEO); the post of BPEO was available with the respondent department; however, the petitioner was not promoted and superannuated in 1999; Had the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee been convened in time then the petitioner would have been promoted as BPEO. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that:- similarly situated employees had preferred CWP No.4655/2012 titled Bhup Chand Thakur & others Vs. State of H.P. & Others, before this court, which was decided on 18.06.2012; the judgment has been accepted by the respondents-State and notional promotions have been given to the petitioners therein, however the same benefit has been denied to the petitioner.
4 . Learned Additional Advocate General, has opposed the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
5 . Hon’ble Apex Court in (2010) 12 SCC 471, titled Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others Vs. State of Orissa and others has
refused the stale claims made by fence sitters, relevant segment held as under:-
“29. It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion. No
3
party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and the laches. The Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallises in the interregnum. (vide Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2077; State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2190; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. vs Shah Hyder Beig & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 671; Inder Jit Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 637; Shiv Dass vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330; Regional Manager,A.P.SRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana & Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 210; and City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 168 ).”
In another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2015(1) SCC 347
titled State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others , relevant segments held as under:-
“22.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.”
6. The petitioner in the relief clause of this petition has referred to Annexure P-1, however, the same has not been appended alongwith the petition. As per his own case, the petitioner
4
superannuated in 1999. He is seeking to raise a service dispute regarding his promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer (BPEO), allegedly due to him during his service career. It has been 21 years since the petitioner retired. The claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches. Even the judgment mentioned in the writ petition of which the petitioner is seeking benefit alleging parity with petitioners therein, was delivered on 18.6.2012. The petitioner
had chosen to be fence sitter for a long time. He did not challenge the alleged wrongful action of the respondents within reasonable time and thus can be said to have acquiesced into same. Petitioner is guilty of delay, laches & acquiescence. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed on this ground. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also disposed of.
(L. Narayana Swami), Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua), Judge
26th November, 2019 (rohit)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired employee can claim promotion benefits after 21 years due to delay?
Whether long delay and acquiescence bars a service claim for promotion despite parity with others?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others Vs. State of OrissaReferred¶20
Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others Vs. State of Orissa (2010) 12 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and othersReferred¶25
State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others 2015(1) SCC 347 · Who else cites this
Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors.Referred
Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2077 · Who else cites this
State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan & Ors.Referred
State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2190 · Who else cites this
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. vs Shah Hyder Beig & Ors.Referred
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. vs Shah Hyder Beig & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 671 · Who else cites this
Inder Jit Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred
Inder Jit Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 637 · Who else cites this
Shiv Dass vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred
Shiv Dass vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330 · Who else cites this
Regional Manager,A.P.SRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana & Ors.Referred
Regional Manager,A.P.SRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana & Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 210 · Who else cites this
City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors.Referred
City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 168 · Who else cites this
Bhup Chand Thakur & others Vs. State of H.P. & OthersReferred
Bhup Chand Thakur & others Vs. State of H.P. & Others
Bansi Ram Thakur
State of H.P.
L Narayana Swamy
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
