Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15987 of 2018 Petitioner :- Narayan Das Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepti Srivastava,Ajal Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava,Sujit Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. K.B. Srivastava and Mr. Sujit Kumar Rai for respondents.
2. On earlier occasion when this case was taken up the learned counsel for respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition.
3. It was his case that the petitioner had filed writ petition in 2018, whereas he was seeking leave encashment w.e.f. the year 1996 till date and also praying for payment of annual increments from the said period onwards.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner: AIR 1983 SC 654 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing any writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would be for the court to decide on its own considering the facts and circumstances of each case whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be determined without taking into account any specific period i.e. a period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be fatal while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 5 SCC 628. The Supreme Court was considering grievance of the appellant regarding his pay fixation which according to him was not in accordance with rules. The Court held that wrong pay fixation was a continuing wrong which gave rise to a recurring cause of action, each time he was paid salary which was not computed in accordance with rules.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Yogendra Srivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 2015 SCW 6362. The Supreme Court relied upon the judgment rendered in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 and observed that in the cases of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights. In the case of the petitioner he has specifically contended that similarly situated employees like one mentioned in paragraph - 11 of the writ petition were getting at least Rs.18,000/- per month more than the petitioner. Someone has also been promoted on Class - III post.
6. Learned counsel for respondents has said that in case the petitioner has a grievance he may make representation to the Respondents No. 4 and 5 in this regard who shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court paragraph - 12 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has made several representations and has also met the Respondent No. 5 on several occasions with his grievance but nothing has been done in the matter. The last such representation made by the petitioner dated 17.01.2018 has been filed as Annexure - 5 to the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this Court may give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation giving details of all dues admissible to him and then a direction may be issued to the respondents to look into his grievance and redress the same.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to make an appropriate fresh representation giving details of dues which according to him should have been paid to him and Respondent No. 5 shall thereafter consider the grievance and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of such a representation along with a copy of this order is produced before him.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 LBY