IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19485 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Kanhai Mahto Son Of Late Jetu Prasad Mahto Resident Of Mohalla- Mirchai Bari, Near State Bank Of India, Katihar, Police Station-Katihar, Post Office-Samaharnalay, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Water Resources Deparmtent, Government Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Water Resources Deparmtent, Sinchai Bhawan, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea. 5. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Katihar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumari Amrita Gp10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 05-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2010 to the extent that it denies him full salary for the periods in question under Item 2 and 3. It is submitted that in C.W.J.C. No.213/1998 disposed on 10.9.1999 this Court had noticed that the transfer order of the petitioner had been stayed and therefore he may not have been at fault in not joining the new place of posting. The Court prevented further Patna High Court CWJC No.19485 of 2011 (2) dt.05-12-2011 2 departmental enquiry in view of his superannuation in 1997. Others similarly situated were granted the relief by an order dated 25.9.2001. The petitioner represented in 2003 but to no avail when he again filed C.W.J.C. No.1537/09 in a composite manner inter alia for admissible retiral dues also. Learned counsel for the State emphasizes the aspect of delay insofar as the claims of salary for the period of suspension is concerned, and submits from the impugned order that certain periods have been held to be of unauthorized absence. If that be so, it cannot be stated that the suspension was wholly unjustified. In C.W.J.C. No.213/1998 the order of punishment was found to be suffering from procedural infirmities. It was set aside with directions to consider the matter afresh. It is not possible for this Court to put the clock back to events with regard to the transfer on 28.6.1990, suspension on 15.6.1992 and charges framed in the year-1993. If the petitioner believed that he had a cause of action on the order of the Court, he should have moved soon thereafter or at least within reasonable time. A fresh cause of action accrued to him on 25.9.2001 when he claims that similarly situated persons were paid salary for the period of suspension. He still does not enforce his rights in accordance with law. Mere filing of representations before the authorities cannot be sufficient explanation. Patna High Court CWJC No.19485 of 2011 (2) dt.05-12-2011 3 Belatedly, he filed C.W.J.C. No.1537/2009 in a composite manner clubbing the issue of his retiral dues also. There is no explanation for the long period from 1999 to 2009. The impugned order arrives at a finding of absence which was unauthorized. This question of fact never attained finality as it is not the case of the petitioner that any fresh orders were passed by the authorities in furtherance of the order in C.W.J.C. No.213/1998. If the petitioner asserts indolence on the part of the respondents in not complying the order dated 10.9.1999 in C.W.J.C. No.213/98, he is equally answerable for indolence. While the rights of a citizen are sacrosanct, the duties of the citizen are equally important. No citizen can be allowed to wake up at his leisure and then file a writ application by urging that he has some explanation for the delay or that no third party rights were going to be affected. If delay was that simple a matter to be considered, there shall be a surfeit of belated claims as there can always be some explanation for the delay. The element of discretion under Article-226 of the Constitution of India for condoning delay shall undoubtedly have a different yardstick today than what it may have had two or three decades ago. In fact, there are judgments of the Supreme Court even as far back as 1970 which caution that the Court must not be liberal on Patna High Court CWJC No.19485 of 2011 (2) dt.05-12-2011 4 issue of delay, more so in service matters clogging the dockets of the Court denying it the valuable time that could be more fruitfully utilized on other important and relevant issues. The Court declines any relief to that extent on grounds of delay. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of Super Selection Grade from 1.3.1989. Let the arrears of salary, increments, revision of pension and arrears of pension of the petitioner by grant of super time scale be calculated and paid to him in accordance with law within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)