r: 'r' . / :K'> ^ -1., IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR t^rp^^^^\^ Applicant - Janardan ©Iriaged 52 years^ S/o Sri E>. ©irl Wardan, Sub-Jail Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. VS. Respondent (1) Stat.e c^vt.of M.P. Jall ©epbt. Through the S@cretary^ Ballabh Bhawan^ ©hopal, (2) Inspeot©rOeneral ©fJail M Jail Head Quarter, Central <Jall, Bhopal. (3) Superintendent ^ sub-Jain ^bndsour E)lstt<. Mandour, (4) ^uperinfcendent^ Sub jail Tarana, Distt. CTjjain. (5) Superintendent ^ Central Jail, Raj.pur. (6) Superlntendent^ BAsttoJall, Durg^ Bistto Durg, Applicatlon u/s 19 of the Adminlstrative Tribunal Act 8S ^ i ^wT-^i^icxi, yalwi<o, RO)I^^ ^.{•^}^'L^\\/6^ wranr^^n^ ..........................^........ ^20 3TT^?T q^t(»(^cli^el^) @ 3n^5Tcj?Tl^TTcp cTS|T3n^5TaiWcF B^ITW? ^rf^T 3TT^?T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. Jl 19-02-2010 Shri Somkant Verma, cour|isel Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Law^er With the consent of learr|€ heard finally. Iselforthepetitioner. ^er for the State/respondents. ;ed counsel for the parties, the matter is Petitioner has challengecj Appellate Authority on 06-05-1^98 petitioner arising out of different increments at different point oftintie. The petitioner while w{: disciplinary action at different poifl (A) Vide order dated 1| Jail, Mandsaur, withholdin^ (B) Vide order dated 1| Jail, Mandsaur, withholdir|g effect. (C) Vide order dated 0|1 Jail, Tarana, withholding of (D) Vide order dated Op- Jail, Tarana \MthholdJng of|- (E) Vide order dated 0|1 Jail, Tarana wthholding (F) Vide order dated Jail, Raipur withholding of< 00 €pi<iIc>)<TITi+ii+ic^'^r'feu£l<<Ri^i^< ^3Tf^TOT^^T as many as 6 orders passed by the in different appeats preferred by the orders of punishment of withholding of )rking as Warden was subjected to it oftime. Details of which are as below:- -07-1983 passed by the Superintendent of two increments with cumulative effect. >-07-1983 passed by the Superintendent of one increment wth non-cumutative 1-10-1987 passed by the Superintendent ' one increment with cumulative effect. )p-07-1988 passed by the Superintendent lone increment with cumulative effect. 1-08-1988 passed by the Superintendent oflone increment with cumulative effect. Op-06-1996 passed by the Superintendent ()ne increment with cumulative effect. fi r":' I- f^. i ^.•' / .^;^i •^ 1l^^^^C-78 "^•^sss^ ^3wr;^TRTTc5?T, tPTTl<{1''l<»,Rlril^y"( ^TR^T^^TT^,_^-(^<)^.^^f/^ ••••••••••• 1h.a *••••••••••••••• y^ •• • • •f~ W120 an^^f^TR^icb ?CT3n^^Tawq? 3H^9T ^aq? (^di^6|<ES) g^TTST? ^CT^cT 3T1^^T ^- ^— Against the aforesaid orcjei increments with or without petitioner did not take recour^e appellate authority or before an^ the same. After a long perio€|l increment, he preferred these orders passed against him in th| dismissed vide order dated 061 bearing No. 576, 577, 578, 579| would show that these appeals) delay. )rc|ers of imposition of penalty of withholding ctlmulative effect from 1983 to 1996, the to remedy either before the statutory Court of law. The petitioner acquiesced in of passing of orders of withholding of ^ippeals in the year 1998 against various year 1983 to 1996. These appeate were l-05-1998 (Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-6 580 and 582). A perusal of these orders |were preferred by the petitioner after bng Against the order of appeal was preferred after 14 rejected vide order No.580 datep Against the order of appeal was preferred after 14 rejected vide order No. 577 datejJ Against the order of appeal was preferred after 10| rejected vide order No. 576 date|d Against the order of appeat was preferred after 9 No. 579 dated 06-05-1998 Against the order of appeal was preferred after 9 rejected vide order No. 578 date|d p^nalty cpi^lojli ^l+loV^T'I^1^ ^Rt^dl^ ^ 3lKl4l W^^T dated 14-07-1983, a departmental ^ears, 5 months and 26 days, which was 06-05-1998 (Annexure A-5). dated 15-07-1983, a departmental years, 5 months and 25 days, which was 106-05-1998 (Annexure A-2). dated 01-10-1987, a departmental years, 3 months and 9 days, which was 06-05-1998 (Annexure A-1). dated 09-07-1988, a departmental ars, 6 months and was rejected vide order A-4). dated 01-08-1988, a departmental /ears, 5 months and 9 days, which was 06-05-1998 (Annexure A-3). p^nalty p^nalty p^nalty y^ars, (Ann^xure p^nalty ^CTSR^ !/^. ~"\, ^IC-78 •''^-.'^^ ^!ET;:?TRTI^T, t?TTl^41<»,RlrtlNi-iy^ ___ w,P.crt^>l^^/dr^ ¥TFS^T^^T^.........^.*............y......... ^20 3TT^9T q^q? (^crfgd^) ^^TcpTf^lt^ ^TT3TT^$T3)HTcp ?^TW^rf^T3T1^5T ^,^. Against the order of pen appeal was preferred after 1 year, cpi<iIo<T11ri +ii+ioV^'(^<<l ^Rit^i^ ^ 3lRl^ OT^^T ^lty dated 09-06-1996, a departmental 17 months, which was rejected vide order No. 582 dated 06-05-1998 (Annexi|ire A-6). A perusal of the aforesaid that the appellate authority has within limitation and on the contr no acknowledgement of submissii the petitioner before the appell together were dismissed by the and there is no illegality or pei interference by this Court. )rders Annexure A-1 to A-6 would show recorded that the appeal was not filed ^ry fresh applications were prepared and ^n of appeal within limitation was filed by ^te authority. All the six appeats filed )pellate authority as barred by timitation /ersity in these orders warranting any It would be seen that the pjetitioner has filed this petition against six orders passed by in six different| appeals on 06-05-1998 without making proper pleadings with respect to ^he each case of imposition of penalty. It would also appear that the app^als itself against various orders passed from time to time, but the petit|oner neither filed any appeal nor took recourse to approach any courjt of law and remained negligent and indolent. The petitioner has not| punishment passed on 14-07-19^ 01-08-1988 and 09-06-1996. In the case of Uttaranc^ another vs. Jabar S/ng/i and ofl as under: 43. The termination order w|as petitions were admittedly fil^d even placed on record the orders of 3, 15-07-1983, 01-10-1987, 09-07-1988, ^al Forest Develcyment Corpn. And ^ers, (2007) 2 SCC 112, it was observed made in the year 1995 and the writ in the year 2005 after a delay of 10 ^^^ 1 %S^%J}C-78 -—^-y '"^ . ^ .3- ..:;^^ ^3wT^TTOTc53T, tPTTl^-l^Ko, Riril^-i^ _,_ v^.P'^') ^.^M»/^>r' *fll*l«l^^TT^ ^20 3TT^$T tRZp (I3crfg^) 3:IT^§TcinR^Jch H^TOT^^T^^ticb years. The High Court, entertaining the wrrt petitioi] been filed after a delay of should have been dismisse|j laches. Further, in the case of Wewt and others,(2007) 9 SCC 278, th^ relating to interference in cases unexplained delay observed as be|ow; wnere 16. There is another asl sight of. The respondents They did not agftate their herein, did not claim paritt possible opportunity. They| even in the reference Tribunal. It is not their cas^ were employed or who w^i been granted the said the writ petitions could notj similarly situated. It is trite be exercised in favour of time. Delay and laches are| jyrisdictipn (See Govf of^ Jaswant Sing^ and K^ Thangappan^.) asbect scalelof those In view of the above legal am ofthe view that the instant pelption on the part of the petition in appr<: out of context to notice that at th{ the Tribunal, provisions of the provided for limitation of one yea|r under challenge. cpiqlojl^ +11+1rtT^'fe^t ^Rl^l^ ^ 3lRi*T 3TT^^T our opinion, was not justified in ^ on the ground that the petition has 10 years and that the writ petitions by the High Court on the ground of Dellv inicipal CouncH v. Pan Singh Supreme Court reiterating the principles petitioner approached the Court with of the matter which cannot be lost t^erein filed a writ petition_after 17 years, gri^vances for a long time. They, as notteed with the 17 workmen at the earliest |did not implead themsek^es as parties m^de by the State before the Industrial that after 1982, those emptoyees who w^re recruited after the cut-off date have pay. After such a long time, therefore, jhave been entertained even ifthey are ^hat the discretionary jurisdiction may not who approach the court after a long Irelevant factors for exercise of equitable y.B. v. Tarun K. Roy2, u.P. Jal Nfgam v. ^rnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. itosition and factual position of the case, 1 suffere from undue delay and laches )aching the Court of law. It would not be time when the petition was filed before ptate Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 from the date of issuance of the order /?^' \ -,l^|l-llC-78 &'i ^ •^^^~ ^TTTOT^^IT^ ^oST^^PTI^T, t?Tn'{-l''l<»,Rrtm^ ^_ V. J \C.; ^'^ ^ ^ /O ^W^20 3TT^9T q@R? (^cjijdcril) 3n^^Tc{nR^jch craT3TK5TaRTcp Tumane E' lr g1^T$R^rf^r3T1^$T r~- In the result, the petition costs. cpt<<[o<i1Ti +ii<irtT^' fe^l xRi^i^ ^? 3lRl<1 OT^^T is therefbre dismissed. No order as to Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude