V AF^ Writ Petition (S) No. 4021 of 2007 Petitioners -I. Sahdeo Ram Maitri S/o. Sbri Sakhi Ram, aged about 44 years, R/o. Viiiage Taideori, Post-Mohaii, Tahsil-Sarangarh, Distt. -Raigarh, Occupation-Sen.'lce, Posted as Jaiwahak Anusuchit Jati Baiak Ashram, Pindari, Sarangarh, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Karmaha Ratre S/o. Shri Shiv Prasad Ratre. aged about 41 years, R/o. VHIage-Bashinbehara, Post-Kotari, Tahsii-Sarangarh, Distt.-Raigarh, Occupation- Sewice, Posted as Cook Pre Mairic Baiak Anushchit Jati Hostei, Koshlr, Sarangarh, DisS.-Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Gaurishankar Mahilane S/o. Shri B.L. Mahiiange, aged about 40 years, R/o. Viliage Churel, Post- Hardi, Tahsii-Sarangarh, Distt.- Raigarh, Occupation - Service, Posted as Chowkidar Pre Metric Balak Anusuchit Jati Hostel, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Thakur Prasad Painkara S/o. Shri Negiram Painkara, aged about 40 years, R/o. Viiiage Khar, Post- Keshaia, Tahsil-Laiiunga, Distt.- Raigarh, Occupation-Service, Posted as peon Govt. Qiris Hostsl, Kaya, Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Chitrasen Painkara S/o. Shri Nanhi Ram Painkara, aged about 42 years, R/o. Viliage Charbhata, Post-Ghatrghoda, Tahsii- Gharghoda, Distt.-Ra'garh, Occupatlon-Service, Posted as Peon, Govt. Higher Secondary Schoo!, Gharghoda, Dlstt.-Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Shiv Prasad Painkara S/o. Shri Nanhu Ram Painkara, aged about 36 years, R/o. Viliage Charbhata, Post-Gharghoda, Tahsi!- Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh, Occupation-Service, Posted at Pre Metric Anusuchit Janjati Hostel, Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) J. Amrit Lai Painkara S/o. Shri Laxmi Prasad Painkara, aged about 35 years, R/o. Viilage Charbhata, Post-Gharghoda, Tahsi!- Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh, I- / Occupation-Service, Posted at Pre Metric Anusuchit Janjati Hostei, Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) 8. Tika Ram Nishad S/o. Shri Kureo Ram, aged about 46 years, R/o. Viitage Salihabhata, Post-Tamnar, Tahsii-Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh, Occupaiion-Service, Posted at Govt. Giris Hostet, Kaya, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 9. Ghurau Ram Sidar S/o. Shrl Andha Ram Sidar, aged about 41 years, R/o. vi!!age Sasihabahat, Post- ; Tamnar, Tahsii-Gharghoda, Distt.- Raigarh, Occupation-Service, Posted as Jaiba'nak at Govt. GirSs Hostei, Kaya, Disa.-Raigarh (C.G.) 10. Saiik Ram Painkara S/o. Shri Injor Singh, aged about 37 years, R;'o. Vii'age Kath.arapa!i, Doiesara, Tahsii-Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh, Occupation-Sewice, Posted at Pre Matric Anusuchit Janjati Boys Hostei, Gharghoaa, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) 11. Niranjan Prasad Jatwar S/o. Shri Dhani Ram Jatwar, aged about37 ysars, R/o. ViHage Kapisda, Post- Uchbhithi, Tahsii-Sarangarh, Distt.- Raigarh, Occupation-Service, Posted as Jaibahak at Pre Metric Anusuchit Jati Boys Hostet, Sarangarh, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) 12. Tejram Joihe S/o. Shri Ram Jo^he, aged about 40 years, PJo. Viilage Kaplsda, Post-Uchbhithi, Tahsii- Sarangarh, Distt.-Raigarh, Occupation-Service, Posted as Jalbahakat Boys Hostel, Pindari, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) Versus 3. 5. hrough the Weifare Building Staie of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Triba! Departmenf, D.K.S. Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Department of Tribal Weifare Development, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, of Triba! Welfare nt, Raigarh, Distt.- Ralgarh, Distt.- DeveiQpms Raigarh (C.G.) The Co!!ector, Raigarh (C.G.) The Collector, Adim Jati kaiyan Vibhag, Raigarh, Tahsi! & Distt.- Raigam (C.G.) ;:l''3;;;,3.S|"SW||g@g|g|(|g|g|g^ Single Bench: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Presenfe Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for ihe respondents/State. (Passed on this I'!'" Day of Juty, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and vaiidity of the order dafed 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Additional Coliector, Raigarh whereunder the grant of reguiar pay scales to the petitioners were withdrawn and the petitioners were paid thereafter daiiy wages as per Coiiector's rate. 2. The indisputabie facts in nutsheil, are that initiaity the pefitioner No. 1 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Waterman vide order dated 1.5.1989, the petitioner No. 2 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 19.7.1989, the petitioner No. 3 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 29.11.1989, the petitioner No. 4 was engaged on daiiy wages on the post of Peon vide order dated 7.3.1989, the petitioner No. 5 was engaged on daiiy viages pn the post of Peon vide order ciated 31.1.1992, thepetitioner No. 6 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Peon (VVaterman) vide order dated 18.3.1981.the petitioner No. 7 was engaged on daiiy wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 18.3.1991, the petitioner No. 8 v/as engsged on daily wageson the post ofWaterman vide order dated 24.3.1991, the petitioner No. 9 was engagsd on daily wages on the post of'Waterman vide order dated 24.3.1991, the petitioner No. 10 was engaged on daiiy wages on the post of Vtfaterman vide order dated 30.7.1991, the petitioner No. 11 was engaged on daily wages on the post ofWaterman vide order dated 17.5.1991 andthe petitioners No. 12 and 13 were engaged on daity wages on the post of Waterman vide order dated 17.5.1991 and thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 was granted -_a reaular pay scale vlde order dated 30.4.1992, the petitioner No. 2 was granted regular pay scaie vide order dated 17.7.1993, the petitioner No. 3 was granted regular pay scaie vide order dated 22.12.1992, the petitioner No. 4 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 6.3.1992, the petitioner No. 5 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 1.2.1995, the petitioners No. 6 and 7 were granted regular pay scaie vide order dated 1.4.1994, the petitioners No. 8 and 9 were granted reguiar pay scale vide order dated 1.1.1994, the petitioner No. 10 was granted reguiar pay scaie vide order dated 1.8.1994, the petitioners No. 11 and 12 were granted reguiar pay scale vide order dated 16.5.1992. 3. The petitioners remained satisfied with the withdrawal of the regular pay scale for about 10 years. The petitioners havs fiied this petition after a judgment and order dated 1 1.7.2006 passed by this Couri in W.P. (s) No. 1792 of 2005 (Manmohan Patel & others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others) allowed the petitfon, Vi/herein the petitioners had chaiienged the same in the year 1998. Relying on the said decision, the petitioners have filed this petition on 25.4.2007 questioning the legality and vaiidity of the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/3). 4. The Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Nadu' observed as sunder: "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exereise their powers under Article 228, nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it wouid be a sound and wise exercise of discretlon t'or the Courts to refuse to exereise their extraordinary pov/ers under Articie 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for reiief and who stand by and atlow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward staie claims and try to unsettie settled matters." £ 1S ..—%SSS-i R 5. The SuDreme Court in the case ofStateof M.P, & others Vsi IMandlal ,s'a'SU'a!and Qthers furthecQbserved as undnr: "Now, it is wetl settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Articte 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise 6f its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indoient or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate deiay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such deiay is not satssfaetory exptained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant reiief in the exereise of Its writ jurisdictlon. The evotution of this rule of iaches or deiay is premssed upon a humber of factors. The Hsgh Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is litoly to cause confusion and pubiic inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition fiied after unreasonabie delay, it may have the effect of inflicting nof only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexptained deiay coupied with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exereise suchjurisdiction. VVe do not think it necessary tQ burden this Judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasized time and again that where there is inordmate and unexpiained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court wouid ciectine to interfere, even if trte State action complained of is unconstitutionalor iliegal. Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & others DinabaRdhu Majumdar & another aiso observed as under: "The very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, in our view, should be asufticient reason for ihe High Court, not to entertain such appiications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and taches." Vs. y- 7. The Supreme Courtin the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Ghairman & Managing Director & another vs. K. Thangappan & another observed as under: "Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in minct by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Articie 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the Hlgh Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers ifthereis such negligence or omission on the part of the applicantto assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamentai right is involved the matter is stiii within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad V. Chief Controller of imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicialiy and reasonabiy." 8. In the present case, the cause of actlon arose dn 4.10.1997, when the grant of regular pay scales Was withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioners had not taken any steps tiii filing of this petition on 25.4.2007 and remained tardy and Indolent. He has not sybmitted sufficient reasons le and inordinate deiay of 10 years. This beiated approaeh wouid certainly cause hardshipand inconvenience to other siae. 9. As a resuit and for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainabSe on the ground of deiay in approaching this Court. . : :. Sd/- j SatishK.^gnihotri Judge 1. AIR1974 SC 2271 2. (-1986)4300566 3. (1995)4SCC172 4. (2006) 4 SCC 322