The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging a C.A.T. order regarding MACP benefits for Postal Department employees. The Court rejected condonation of inordinate delay, finding the petitioners acted in a leisured manner without bona fides.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
109 CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 05.05.2022
Union of India and others
....Petitioners
V/s
Davinder Nath and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for the caveator-respondents.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 01.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, wherein it had directed to grant the benefit of 3rd MACP under the said Scheme, at par with other counter parts in Postal Department from the date the private respondents became entitled, after verification of the facts.
The Tribunal followed the earlier view in Original Application No.3204/2011 titled as Madhu Sudan and others vs. Union of India and others, decided on 26.10.2015 (Annexure A-12), in which MACP benefit had been given by the Department of Posts and Telegraph in case of Drivers, whereas in the present case, the applicants were stated to be working as Tele/Switch Board Supervisor, Civilian Switch Board Operator (CSBO) Grade-I and Grade-II.
On 09.03.2022, the following order was passed by this Court :-
“A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that against the impugned order dated 01.11.2019 (Annexure P-1), the applicant-respondents have filed execution proceedings (E.A.No.424-2020) dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure P-4). Apparently on 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-6), the Tribunal noticed that compliance was not made as no reply was being filed to the Miscellaneous
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[2]
Application and accordingly, directed respondent No.2 (Director General of Signals) to appear in person with records of the case.
Woken from the slumber, present petition was filed on 28.01.2022. It is thus, apparent that there is a considerable delay in filing the writ petition and prima facie opinion of this court is that the petitioners were never interested in contesting the litigation. It is only on account of the enforcement of the orders, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petition.
Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioners has endeavoured to orally justify the delay. Accordingly, he is given one opportunity to file the necessary affidavit to justify the delay.
To come up on 18.04.2022.”
In pursuance of the same, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6246-CWP-2022, has been filed for placing on record the additional affidavit to explain the delay. Copy of the additional affidavit dated 22.04.2022 of Colonel Naveen Dagar, Commanding Officer, Western Command, Signal Regiment, Chandimandir, Panchkula, Haryana has been perused. The said affidavit confirms the factum of the inordinate delay which had taken place and the fact that in principle, the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the litigation.
Mr. Rawal, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that an opinion was taken from the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs on 13.01.2022 (Annexure A-12), that it was a fit case to file the writ petition before the High Court against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, it is submitted that there was no such delay on the part of the petitioners. The relevant paras of the said affidavit read as under:-
“2. That it is humbly submitted that while passing impugned order dated November 1, 2019 (Annexure P-1) the learned Tribunal below relied upon its earlier order dated October 26, 2015 passed in OA No.3204 of 2011 titled as Madhu Sudan & others Vs. Union of India & Others. The petitioners-Union of India filed CWP No.3974
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[3]
of 2017 impugning order dated October 26, 2015 before the Hon’ble High court of Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated May 9, 2017. The petitioners then preferred SLP No. 32936 of 2017 titled as Union of India & others Vs. Madhu Sudan & others before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order November 15, 2019 ( Annexure A-1) .
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[4]
2021 ( Annexure A-6) to grant financial up-gradation only to applicants of Madhu Sudan Case ( supra) and not for all CSBOs of the Department.
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[5]
administrative Ministry to decide whether to implement MACP in respect of its employees or to continue with the TBPS.
Thus, it is apparent that after receiving the order dated 01.11.2019
(Annexure P-1), a decision was taken on 21.01.2020 (Annexure A-2) that since the
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[6]
SLP had been dismissed by the Apex Court on 15.11.2019 (Annexure A-1), in Madhu Sudan’s case (supra), the matter was under consideration and once it was finalized on the basis of same, the implementation of the instant judgment would be decided.
A perusal of the additional affidavit would go on to show that the execution application was preferred by the employees and, thereafter, no decision was taken that it was a fit case to file the writ petition. Rather, a perusal of the letter dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure A-4) would go on to show that the correspondence was made to the Records Signals with regard to implementation of judgment of the Tribunal in Madhu Sudan’s case ( supra) and efforts were being made to implement the said judgment as early as possible. Keeping in view the pressing circumstances of rampant COVID-19 and its financial and other implications involving various Departments apart from the Ministry of Defence for which the two Nodal Departments of the Government viz. DoP & T and DoE/Ministry of Finance were involved, the Department was earnestly trying to remove the barriers coming in the way in complying the order in the matter. Rather, a similar letter was also addressed on 14.01.2021 that the judgment in OA No.3204/2011 was finalized and implemented very soon. Similarly, on 03.03.2021 (Annexure A-6), sanction was granted to the applicants of Madhu Sudan’s case ( supra ) for the benefit of MACP scheme and in view of the contempt petition filed by the petitioners, reference of which was made in the said letter.
It was only, thereafter, on 09.06.2021, the Directorate had processed the matter and forwarded the same to the Ministry of Defence, Department of Military Affairs (DoMA) on 12.06.2021 seeking approval for the implementation of the order, which was the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. It is AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document only thereafter, the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[7]
opined that it was a fit case to file the writ petition before the High Court. Thus, it is apparent that for a period of 1 year and 2 months, the petitioners in principle had decided that they would implement the order of the Tribunal. It is only subsequent to that on account of opinions taken from the different departments, they thought it necessary to file the present writ petition.
We are of the considered opinion that the latitude which was to be given to the State is to a certain limit and it cannot be given unfettered free play and there is no much discretion available for them. Sufficient cause has to be shown and there has to be a bona fide explanation as such, which in the present case is lacking at all levels. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the principles laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649. In the said case, there was delay of 2449 days and the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court had entertained the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Relevant portion reads as under:-
“15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[8]
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[9]
It is clear that once recourse had not been taken and the petitioners
have acted in a leisured manner in seeking remedy of legal recourse in spite of being well versed with the legal procedure which has been prescribed, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be given the latitude which it expects. They have not been vigilant enough and unnecessarily forced the other side to await the fruit of litigation. In such circumstances, we do not deem it a fit case to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court considering the fact that there has been inordinate delay and there was intent not to challenge the AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 order. Though, counsel for the petitioners submits that it was only at the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-4059-2022 (O&M)
[10]
Directorate level, it is not for us to decide whether it was on the right level or on the wrong level. Rather, it is for the petitioners to fix the responsibility at its own level.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, we leave the issue in question open to be decided by this Court in an appropriate case.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI) JUDGE
May 05, 2022 Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
AJAY KUMAR 2022.05.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches warranting dismissal.
Whether sufficient cause exists for the delay in filing the challenge against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy and othersRelied on¶62
Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Madhu Sudan and others vs. Union of India and othersDistinguished¶14
Madhu Sudan and others vs. Union of India and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
Davinder Nath
G.S. SANDHAWALIA
VIKAS SURI
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
