<e c ^ ^ ^') ^N^l-^ - Qet;.4";.^;, ,;05-"'-!;>i< v.-;^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFLCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^^^ OFL2010 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS ,0.^ ..Y^ .\ ^w ^^f /w^ y ^r^ /.'^. / .f"/ ^/^ ^"./ ^«? ^^^^.. f^- ~ '^ %' .'.„. ^^-',.. 1 •% i Rajendra Prasad Paraste S/o Shri Samelal Paraste, aged about 3f years, R/o village Maradabra, Tahsil- Pandariya, Distt.- Kabeerdham (C.G.). VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 The Collector, Kabeerdham, Distt.- Kabeerdham (C.G.). 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Tahsil- Pandariya, Distt.- Kabeerdham (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /% ^ HSGH COURT GF CHHATTISQARSli_B«-ASPVR Sinaje Bench; Hon'bleShri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. WRiT PETiTiON i3i N0.3379/2010 PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS Rajendra Prasad Paraste Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others WSTPETmON UNDER ARTiCLE 228 GF THE CGNSJTUTiON OF SN^A Present:3S Shri R.R.Soni, counsoi for tho petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekarn, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORAL GRDER (Passed on 12th Juiy, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. By' thSs petition, petitioner has assaiied iegaiifry and vaiidity of order dated 1/7/98 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby petitioner vyas removed from the office of Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Teliyapani. 3. Submission of iearned counsei for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed on 1/7/98 and v^as to remajn effective oniy tiii further orders. Yet, no orders have been passed tiEi date. it is furthef submitted that after passing the order dated 1/7/98, neither any departmentai enquiiy was initiated nor any order of removai frorn service has been passed. Yet, the petitioner has not been reinstated in seivice. it is submitted that severai representations have been fiied by the petitioner praying for reinstatement of the petitioner, but no action has been taken. it is submitted that impugned order dated 1/7/98 was passed without any show cause notice and without there bejng any resoiution of Gram Panchayat even with no writlen compSaints to the higher authorities. There was no enquiry conducted before issuance of irnpugned order dated 1/7/88. it is — J •^^ J-'""""^ 1 ^^ -'Ss^" ^ w submitted that impugned order arnounts to removai of the petitioner from services and the sarne could not be Qsone without compiying with the provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Ds'scipiine and Appeal) Ruies, 1899. 4. From the averments made in the petition and in ttie irfjpugned order, It jas ciear that the impugned order was passed as back as on 1/7/1998 and more than 12 years have eiapsed. By the impugned order, the petitloner was removed fi-om the office of Secretary of Gram Panchayat. However, thereafter, no remedy was taken by the petitioner inciuding statutory remedy avallable unaaer the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeai and Revision) Ruies, 1885. in para 7 of the petition, aii that has been stated is that there is no intentionai delay in fiiing the present petition. in the entire petition, no explanatlon for such a iong deiay in approaching this Court has been pieaded much iess any other cjrcumstances warranting interference by this Court after such a iong time. Petitioner has remained completeiy indoient and has not approached this Court within a reasonabie time nor has expiajned deiay in fiiing this petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India. Submisslon of iearned counsel for the petitjoner that the cause of action is continuing and recumng ev-ery day as the petitioner is not reinstated, is whoily misconceived and is iiabie to be rejected. Once the petitioner has been rernoved from service, the impugned order takes its effect and it cannot be said to be continuing cause of action. 5. " in the case of A.J. Fernandls Vs. Divisionai Manager, South Centrai Raiiwayand Others (2001) 1 SCC 240 , Supreme Court has heid as under: "14. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the appeiiant got promoted to the post of Ticket Collector on 28.5.1983. He was ther^after promoted as a Senior Ticket Coiiector on 25.9.1986. The appeiiant w'as then promoted ,,,.^-^t '": -^; ;-^^i^ ^l^:^ ^^^^^y as a Train Ticket Examiner on 25.5.1987, The 3rd respondent chose to chaiienge the promotjon of the appe!Iant as a Ts'cket Coiisctor oniy on 11.12.1987, j.e. after a period of 4 years. On the ground of delay and !aches a!so the application of 3rd respondent should have been dismissed." (NNKN' 6. in the case of Uttaranchai Forest Development Ooipn. And another vs. Jabsr Singh and others, (2007) 2 SCC 1i2, it was observed as under: 43. The terrnination order was rnade in the year 1895 and the writ petitions were admittediy fiied in the year 2005 after a delay of 10 years. The High CourS, jn our opinion, was not justified in entsrtaining the writ petltlon on the ground that the peSJtion has fceen fited after a delay cnf 10 years and that fhe writ petitions should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of laches. 7. Further, in the case of New DeShi Municipal Councif v. Pan Singn and others,(2007) 3SCC 278, the Suprerne Court reiteratiny the principies reiatjng to interference in cases where petitioner approached the Court with unexpiained deiay as beSow: 18. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petjtion afser 1 7 years^ They did not agjtate thejr grSevances for a Song time. They, as notjced herein, did not cSaim parity with the 17 workmen at the earSlest possible opportunity. They did not impiead themseives as parties even in the reference made by the Staie before the industriai Tribunal. it is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were empioyeci or who were recruited after th©cut-olf date havs been granted ths said scaSe of pay. Aftsr such a iong time, thersfore, the wrlt petitions couid not havs been enterteined even if they are simiiariy situated. jt is trite that the discreuonary jurisdictjon may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a tong tsme. DeSay and laches are relevant tactors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy2, U.P. Ja! Nigam v. Jaswant Singi^andt Karnaiaka Power Coipn. Ltd.v. K. Thangappaf^-.} 8. in the case of P. S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamii Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, it has been heid as under:- "It is not that there is any period of iimltation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Artjcle 226 nor is It that there can never be a case where fhe Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exerdse of discretion for the Courfes to refuse to exerclse their extraordinary powers under Articie 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it 33 4 expeditiousiy forTeiief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forA'ard stale c!ajms and tr/ to unsetS!e settSed matlers. The petitioner's petition shouid, therefor©.have been dismissed in iimine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of tirne of the Court. Et c!ogs the work of the Court and jmpedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as aiso ite normal work. We eonsider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appeiiant's petition as welS as the appeal." 9. in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union oflndia, (1992) 3 SCC 136, it v^as heid as under: 8. Tnere is another aspect of the rnatter. inordinate and unexpjained detay or laches ss by itseSf a ground to refuse relief to the petitsoner, irrespective of the merit of his ciaim. if a person entitied to a reiief chooses to remaln silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonabie beiief in the mind of others that he is not interestod isi cSalrrjing that relief. Others are then justified in acting on that beiief. This is r?iore so in ssn/ice matters where vacanciss are required to be fs!!ed promptiy. A person cannot be permitied to chaSienge the termination of his service after a period of twenty-two years, without any cogent explanation for the Enordinate deiay, mereSy because others simEIar!y disniissed hao' been reinstated as a result of their eariier petitions being ailowed. 10. in view of the aforesaid weil settied principies, it is ciear that the instent petition suffers from gross delay and laches and there is no expSanation what so ever for such deiay. Accordingly, the petition ss dismissed. No order as to costs. Dwy\\ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge