";^= »- I&sBi E RP CPlr^QL- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W^P.No. /2006 (Service Matter) PETmQNERS : \^€^<.- v )••''.<^'y .••'~ ^acyi _.-••'" . /^yfy /)<^(^' /^M^ ,^^ ^v .-.&••" ^" ^ RESPONDENTS ^ ^.Tb7! .pv\ ?% ^Q71.^ Yy 6- ^^ ^' .^'^ ^Smt. Shashibala Gandhrala aged about 35 years W/o. Shri Ram Lal Gandharala Occupation Assistant Teacher Mata Rukmani Sewa Sansthan Kanya Aashram, Dhanora, D'istt. Dantewada (South Bastar) VERS^US ^ 2, >• 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Schedule caste/Schedule Tribe & Backword Classes welfare department, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Trible Department, Distt. - Baster (C.G.) Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, Distt.-Baster (C.G.) Secretaary, Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, Distt.-Baster (C.G.) WRIT PeTITIONU/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 /\ XI-HC-78 Wflcll Sib+<l<h 's^^fpffvPf, w^ww, fSi<'iwy UJ-P-Li} IS-S.S.f-O^ V% 200 3n^?T yatn {'i^t^'5'^) an^T^rf^-iR? (pn'3n^?Tst>*< Subhosh V- wnwafefsii^r 03.01.2007 Shri t>.R. Sharma. Senior C^i counsel fw the petitioner(s). 9fri Sumesh Btyoj, So^ememt Advocate for the respondents Nto. 1 and 2. With the consent of lewAed porties, -tfie writ petition is heard Common order dictated in in open Court, passed separately. A copy of thte order be connected writ petitions. ftnally Writ t»laced on the record of the *l<<I<-l<i)-l KIHCtT ff rs'<J) iRl'KK ^sri^Tsn^r unsel with Shri B.&. Badgaiyan. counsel appearing for the and disposed of. it Petition (5) No. 7222/2006 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge P.T.O. '^/<&^ <' ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Beach : Hoa'ble Sbri Satteb Kumar Agnibotri, J. W.P.tSI No. 7222 of 2006 Petltioner : Smt. Shashibala Gaadhrala Vs. Respondents : StateofChhattisgarh& others W.P. (Sj No. 7224 of 2006 Petltloner : Smt. Ganga Nagesh Vs. Respondeats : State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers W.P. (8) Mo. 722S of 3006 Petltloner : Ku. MaltiYadav Vs. Respondeats ; State ofChhattisgarh & others And W.P. (8) No. TM6 of 2006 PetitionCT : Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Respoadents : State of CMiattisgarh Ss ofhers PRE8ENT: - Shri D.R. Sharma, Senior Coiinsel wifh Shri B.D. Badgaiyan, counsel for fhe petitioner(s). Shri Suinesh Bajaj, Govenunent Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 aad 2. ORDBR (Passed on 3rd day ofJannary, 2007) According to the petitioners, the petitioners were appoiated as Assistant Teachers/Upper Division Teachers in Mata Rukhamatii Seva Saasthan, Dhimarapal, District-Baster (C.G.), which fa a gTant-in-aid institution. Leamed coiinsel appearing for the petitioncrs submits that fhe State Govemment by the communication dated 6.6.1995 has instructed the Conumssioner and Director, Trible Welfare Department, Bhopal to grant revised pay-scate to grant-in-aid institutions. Despite the said recominendation, fhe revised pay-scate was granted. 2. Being aggrieved, fhe petitioners have ffled fhese writ petitions on 13-12-2006, after a period ofniore fhan 11 years seekiug a direction to fhe respondents/State to grant revised pay-scale as per circular dated 6.6.1995 (Annexure P/2) with arrears and interest. It is not disputed that the petitioner has approached this Court aflter lapse ofover 11 years wifhout any justification or any explanation. 3. These petitions have been ffled after a long inoidinate and unexplained delay of over 11 years. The petitioner has not been able to produce or submit any reason for condonation ofsuch a long delay ia filing this petition. 4. It is weU setfled that High Court ia exercise of its discretion does not oidinarify assist the terdy and the uidolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic as the belated approach may have the effect of iaffictmg not onfy hanlship as inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. 5. The Supreme Coiut ia Jagdish Harain Mtdtiar Vs. The State ofBihar & others1 observed as uader. Thus it was in August, 1963 that the appellaat discovered fhat his services were realfy determiaed for gross misconduct. For nearfy 3 years fhereafter he kept on submitting one memorandum after anothcr to fhe Govemnient and it was not uutil late ia 1966 that he fited a Writ Petition in the High Court to challenge fhe order of reaioval. The ineuiorials presented by ~h\m to the Govemment were in the nature of uiercy petitious and he shouM have realized that w- pursuing a reinedy which was not duly appointed under the law he was putting ia peril a right of high value 'and sigiuficance. By his conduct he disabled fhe High Court fix>ia exercising its cxtraordmaiy powers ia his favour. We are tberefore of fhe opinion that fhe High. Court was justified ia refusiag to entertain tfae petition." 6. The Supreme Court in P.8. Sadasivaswuny Vs. State of TainU Nadu2 observed as under: "It is not that there is aay period ofliinitation for the Courts to exercise tbeir powers under Ardcle 226, nor is it fhat fh.ere can never be a case where the Courts caanot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain lengfh of time. But it would be a sound aad wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to re-fuse to exercise fheir extraordiaaiy powers under Article 226 ia the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiousty for relief and who stand by and aUow thiags to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and tty to unsettle settled inatters.' / 7. The Supreme Court in State of M.P. & others Vs. Nandlal Jalswal aad others3 further observed as under. *Now, it is weB settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionaiy and the High Court in the *AIR 1973 SC 1343 2AIR1974SC2271 ' (1986) 4 SCC 566 sssss s ssss ssss s s *->! exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily e^sist the taidy aad the iadolent or the acquiescent and the letfaargic. If there is mordiaate delay on the part of fhe petitioner ia filiag a writ petition and such dclay »not satisfactorify explaiued, fhe Wyja. Court may decline to iatervcne and grant reMef ia fhe exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of ttus i-ule of laches or delay is premised upoa a number of factors. The High Court does not ordiuarily permit a belated resort to the extraordiaary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likefy to cause coiifusion aad public iaconveuience and briag in its train new iajustices. The rights of third parties xaay uiteryeue and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition ffled after iiareasonable delay, it inay havc the effeet of mfficting not only hardship and inconvenience but ateo injustice on tturd parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is iavoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation offhud parfy righ.ts in the laeaawhilc is aa important factor which always weighs with fhe High Court in decidiag whether or iiot to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not fhink it necessaiy to burden fhis judginent with reference to various decisions of ttus Court where it has been eniphasized tiiae and again that where there is iaordinate and unexplained delay aad fhird party rights are created iu fhe tatervening period, fhe High. Court woiild declme to iaterfere, even if fhe State action complained ofis unconstitutional or iUegal. 8. The Supreme Court iu Biirn Standard Co. Ltd. & others Vs. DInabandltu Majumdas- & another4 also observed as under: The veiy conduct of non-raising of an objection in the inatter by fhe employee, iu our view, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay aud laches." (1995) 4 SCC 172 <"•-'• F, 9. Tbe Supreme Court in KaraatatEa Poww <^>rporation Ltd. tlu-ou^h Its Chairman & Mana^ng DIrector & aaother Vs. K. Thangappan & anotAer5 observcd as iinder: Delay or laches is one offhe factors which is to be bome ia inind by fhe High Court when fhey exercise their discretioiiary powers luuder Article 226 of fhe Constitution. In aa afipropriate case fhe High Coiirt may reftisc to invoke its exteaoiriiaaiy powei's if there is such negligence or omission on thc part of fhe appUcaat to assert his right as taken in conjiuiction with the lapsc oftune and otfaer circumstances, causes prejudice to tfae opposite party. Even where fundaiuental right is involved the matter is stiU within the discretion of the Coiut as poiuted out in Dm^a Prasad V. Cbief ControUer of Imports and Exports. Ofcourse, (he discretion has to be exercised judiciaUy and reasonabty." 10. In the present cases, the cause of action arose on 6.6.1W5, when fhe conununication was sent by fhe State Goverament to the aufhorities for grant of revised pay-scale. The petitioner has not taken any steps ever since tiU these petitions were filed ia December, 2006 and reniained <ardy and indolent. This belated approach would certainfy cause hardship and inconvenience to other side. 11. As a result, for the a&resaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed as not mqiatainable on the ground ofdelay in approaching this Court. 12. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected matters. Sufcbasb. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge s (3006) 4 SCC 322