Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16067 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav,Victor Kaiser Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner claims that she was appointed as an Anganwadi Sahayika on 6.12.2004 at honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. Her grievance is that after the year 2006 her honorarium was stopped and on 20.11.2010 Smt. Pushpa Devi was appointed in her place.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 2010 when the petitioner was removed, she has been making several complaints and she has also made complaint against Pushpa Devi who was appointed in place of the petitioner. No other submission has been made.
Learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to an order issued from the office of Child Development Project Officer, Mant, Mathura dated 20.5.2016 which indicates that in 2006 the petitioner was transferred to Anganwari Kendra Jarara-II but she did not join and for the last more than ten years she has not been working.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Concededly, the petitioner was working as an Anganwadi Sahayika, which is a contractual appointment. In case her grievance was not redressed within reasonable time she could have taken recourse to the appropriate remedy but she has been making representations ceaselessly, thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.
The Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 470 has refused to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioners therein were making representations which Government had received but no action was taken. The Court observed as under:
"36. ...But there is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations."
In the case of Northern India Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 234 the Supreme Court has held that in writ proceedings the Court cannot ignore delay and laches, although there is no period of limitation. But there must be satisfactory explanation as to how the petitioner couldn't come to the Court well within time. If after making representation the authority concerned does not take appropriate decision within a reasonable time the employee should seek appropriate remedy.
In the present case also the petitioner has been making representations for the last ten years.
The experience reveals that a large number of matters of this nature are filed in this Court. The Supreme Court in one of the cases has held that in petty matters the High Court should not interfere. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112. The Court has expressed its anguish that the court's precious time is wasted in deciding the petty matters. The Court has observed that need of the hour is to cancel/ discharge such petitions in the larger interest of the society and Courts. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
"12. ...It is a pity that the time of the court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done."
In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 Digamber