The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a pay scale reduction order where the petitioner delayed approaching the court by nearly ten years without providing legitimate cause for the laches. The court held the application was barred by limitation.
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 JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5267 of 2014
Satish Kumar S/o Late Sita Ram, R/o New Area, Hamidganj, Kandakhand, Subhash Chowk, Medini Nagar, PO and PS Daltonganj, District Palamau
…… Petitioner
Versus
…….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
……..
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. R.R. Mishra, Adv.
04/Dated: 10th March, 2015
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order vide memo no. 1053/ Medini Nagar dated 23.08.2004 passed in the light of the letter no. 1543/vi by which the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs. 4000-100-6000/- to Rs. 3050-4590/-.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Clerk vide memo no. 956/ Medini Nagar dated 04.08.2004, in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, but, subsequently, vide memo no. 1053/Medini Nagar dated 23.08.2004, and also in view of the letter dated 10.07.2004 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, his pay scale was reduced to Rs. 3050-4590/-. For redressal of his grievances, the petitioner claims to have filed a representation before respondent no. 2 on 16.05.2014 (Annexure-3), but, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no action has been taken by the respondents as the representation, is still pending.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the impugned order which is under challenge in this writ application is dated 23.08.2004 and no averment has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition as what caused him to redress his grievances before the concerned authorities after a delay of more than ten years.
On going through the writ petition, I agree with submission of the learned counsel for the State that although the impugned order was dated 23.08.2004, but, the writ petitioner after consuming almost ten years has preferred representation before respondent no. 2 i.e. on 16.05.2014 which apparently points to serious laches on the part of the petitioner for
-2-
redressal of his grievances after a lapse of such a long period of time. The writ petitioner has also failed to bring on record any reasonable grounds for substantiating the delay for redressal of his grievances.
Since no legitimate cause has been shown by the petitioner, and in view of the apparent laches on his part, this writ application is dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Tarun
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this writ application for quashing a pay scale reduction order should be allowed despite a delay of ten years in seeking relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Civil Surgeon, Palamau
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
