Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23399 of 2018 Petitioner :- Naresh Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S. Shekhar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. Shri V.K. Singh learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the U.P. Power Corporation has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He says that the petitioner has made a simply prayer in this writ petition for a Mandamus to be issued to the respondents to decide petitioner's application dated 21.04.2018.
2. However, from the perusal of the application dated 21.04.2018 it appears that the petitioner wishes to reopen the matter that was settled 23 years ago. He seeks a parity with one Om Prakash who belongs to the same Category as the petitioner i.e. Scheduled Caste who was appointed after the petitioner on 22.10.1983 but has been promoted on the post of Laungig Assistant in 1990. The petitioner kept quiet for 23 years and has now raised his grievance and it is settled law that one who sleeps over his rights may not be heard in writ jurisdiction. He has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava: (2015) 1 SCC 347.
3. He has also apprised this Court that now no reservation in promotion can be carried out and it may have been that Om Prakash may have been given such benefit under Section 3 (7) of the U.P. Reservation Act, 1994.
4. The writ petition is barred by laches and should be dismissed.
5. The counsel for petitioner says that the petitioner is a low paid employee and has been contacting his superiors time and again and he even made a representation in 2015.
6. This Court finds that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation. The Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 396 that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation to a litigant who sleeps over his rights.
7. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches alone.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 LBY