HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR wan PETITIuN No.1415 OF 2004 PETITIONER N.N. Jha, $fo Late Shri Prayag Dutta Jha, Profession-Retired Primipal, aged about 74 years, Rio Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, District Biiaapur, Chhattisgarh. Versus RESPCJNDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Director, Department of Public Instructions, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 3t The Joint Director, Public Instruction, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). 4. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’hle Shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. ’ Present :- Shri Hemant Kesharwahi, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER ’ (Passed on this 15‘“ day at September, 2008) The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the amount which was withheld from 5—7-1 980 to 10-64 999. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a retired Principal of Government Higher secondary School, Sarsiwa at Bilaigarh, District Raigarh, He joined in the education department on the post of Teacher in the year 1954 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Principal in Government Higher $econdary $ohool on 25—6-1 976 in the pay scale of Rs.425—9f)0, He reached in the pay scale of Rs.680i- on 5-7-1980. According to the leernm counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner tiled an application before MP. $tate Administrative Tribunal, seeking relief to cross efficiency bar with effect from 5-7-1980 with all consequential benefits along with interest at / / the rate of 18% per annumh The petitiongr was paid the principal amount, but no interest was paid. 3) The petitioner has not stated in his petitinn asto how he is entitied to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1980. The petition is vague and tack$ relevant adequate materials and as such, it i3 not possible for thi$ court tn adjudicate upon the is$ue far want of materials. Even otherwiee, it appears that though it is not stated clearly that the petitioner was permitted to cross etticiency bar with effect from 5-7—1980. The petitioner has slept over his rights since 1980 till the tiling of this petition on 14-5-2004. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not deserve sympathy as the petitioner has already waived his right of seeking appropriate remedy under the provisions of law. The laches and delay in approaching this Sourt has not been explained by the petitioners The law on the principle of waiver and acquiescence is welt settled that, if the petitioner sleeps over his rights and is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, he may not be entitled to the same relief as was granted to other vigilant personslemployees. 4) ln the matter of Kamataka Power corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman & Managing Director and another vs. K. Thangappan and another‘, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. ln an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances. cause prejudice. to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad V. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of 1 (2006) 4 SCC 322 corse, the discretio has to b9, exercised iudiciaHy and reasonabfy." 5) On Iaches and delay in agitating the giances before the Crt the rav ou Hon'ble Sreme Court in the matter of state 0f Punjab an nother vs. !karan Singhz observed as under : up d a Ba “22. According to us, the suit is aiso barred by acqiescence nd estoppel. No one in a sen/ice can sleep over he question o seniority for more than 12 ars and then come to court seeking a reiief which wiil upset the seniority of a number of persons who had been shown as seniors in the respective seniority lists. Therefore, on the face of it, a dectaratory relief that win have the effect of altering a twelve—year—old and a nine-ar—old seniority iist could not have been granted by the courts below.“ 6) The $upme Court in the matter of .P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jashwant Singh and another 3 observed as der : “6r The questio of delay an laches has bee examined by this Cort in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important ctor in exercise of the discretionary elief under Artice 226 of the Constitution. en a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesoes th the situation, ca his writ petition be heard after a cuple of years on the ground that same relief should be grand to him as was granted to person similarly situated wh was vigilant about his rights and challenged his rerement which was said to be made on attaining the ae of 58 years ...... " 7) he aforesaid citations were referred and followed by this Court in T the matter of Bhoj Ram Sahu and others vst State of CG d others, an decided on 8—8-2008‘ 8) in view of the foregoing, this petition is smissed summarily. di Raju! Gowri 2 3 (2006) 1 so 709 2 c (2006) 1 soc 46a u n u a t f ye ye re U un n d n u fa r i Wh wi n o te o ti g / 1