High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/1073/2018dismissed

Sat Narain And ANR v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2018-07-18Mr. Justice Krishna Murari,Mr. Justice Arun Palli8 pages

Date of Decision: 18.07.2018 Sat Narain and another .....Appellants versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents ! " #$ #

% # " #

% Present :

Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. **** $ #

% &'( CM Nos. 2878)LPA of 2018 & 2877)LPA of 2018 Heard. For the reasons set out in the delay condoning application duly supported by affidavit, 14 days delay in filing and 197 days in re)filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Both the application stands disposed of.

This intra)court appeal has been filed by the appellants) petitioners under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by them seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit them to join the services as constables/wireless operators in Haryana Police/Haryana Armed Police. 2.

Two appellants herein alongwith certain other persons made the aforesaid claim seeking parity with the persons given such an appointment vide orders dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Telecommunications), Haryana in compliance of the orders dated

21.11.2012 passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana. The aforesaid directions were issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana, on the basis of the judgment and order dated 15.02.2012 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11129 of 2006 and 2116 of 2007. 3.

The appellants)petitioners were appointed on the posts of Constables/Wireless operators (male and female) in Telecommunication Wing of Haryana Police on the basis of a regular selection held for the purpose. The services of the appellants)petitioners and other similarly situated constables were dispensed with on the pretext that they were recruited for appointment in Haryana State Industrial Security Force and their services were dispensed with on the ground that Haryana State Industrial Security Force Act, 2005 was repealed on 29.06.2005. 4.

Various such constables filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11129 of 2006 and 2116 of 2007 (

challenging the orders terminating the services. It is an admitted fact that the appellants)petitioners herein did not challenge the order of termination at that stage. The aforesaid two writ petitions came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 15.02.2012 by the learned Single Judge relying upon a Division Bench judgment dated 01.09.2009 rendered in LPA No. 96 of 2009 (

which was already affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5.

Learned Single Judge after detailed analysis of the facts as culled out from the pleadings of the parties and various judgments on the basis of which the parity was being claimed by the appellants)petitioners came to the conclusion that the cases of Satya Narayan and others (supra) and Mohan Lal and others (supra) on which a reliance was being placed pertain to selection of the constables/wireless operators (male and female)

vide advertisement dated 25.07.2004 and the earlier litigation in the case of Mohan Lal (supra) pertained to the post of Sub Inspector and the process was through the Staff Selection Commission and that the case of Satya Narayan's (supra) relates to the advertisement dated 25.07.2004 for appointment of temporary constables/wireless operators whereas the petitioners were selected and appointed under advertisements dated 06.02.2004 and 10.07.2004 which was done by the recruitment centres seet up by the Director General of Police at the district level and thus they were not entitled to claim parity on the basis of aforesaid two judgments. 6.

Learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that some similarly situated persons filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 22455 of 2012 and 25957 of 2012 which were dismissed on 04.11.2004 on the ground of delay and latches.

Reliance was also placed on the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases

!"# $"" %" &''

&and % ()% ' %" *+* , 8.

Admittedly, the appellants)petitioners alongwith various other similarly situated employees filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 06.07.2005 and 07.07.2005 terminating their services. A further writ of mandamus was claimed to command the respondents to permit the petitioners to serve as constables in Haryana Police as has been allowed to other colleagues vide order dated 21.11.2012. Thus the impugned orders dated 06.07.2005/07.07.2005 were sought to be challenged by the appellants)petitioners by filing a writ petition in the year 2017 after about 12 years.

The issue regarding delay in invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and basing the claim on the earlier judgments passed in the case of similarly situated persons is no longer res)integra and stands settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (-)

% -". % *''&*&In the said case certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years and were entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. Reliance was also placed on the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by certain similarly situated persons. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgments. Hon'ble Apex Court noticing the fact that the employees in earlier writ petitions had approached the Court while they were still in service whereas subsequent writ petitions were filed after delay and latches and after they had retired on attaining the age of 58 years held that the persons who approached the Court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order passed in some other case earlier are not entitled to the discretionary relief on account of delay and latches. It may be relevant to quote the following observation from the said judgment:)

! " # $

" %&''()*##*''+

/ &&0

1 /

*'0&'' *)4&''

&'') &''& &''* &''5 &''

&'' &''0

, ......

8 9 10.

Again in the case of %%)+%/+)) )) % 0%)%"

1, the same issue was considered and answered as under:) 5'

! #

11.

In % 2 %")

''3

, the Hon'ble Apex Court testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and latches pertaining to grant of service benefits has held as under:)

;

/ )5

%&''2()##*&) : !"

#! $ % %&''4( 2 ## &41

/ &&0

! #

& '

%)24( ) ## )&

/ &&0

! #

8$ 9 12.

In a more recent judgment in case of '% %4) 5%644)#%.% %%" 226) 76 && ''3 3it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:) 3

13.

Thus, it stands well settled that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. While exercising an extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, the Courts are under obligation to protect the rights of citizens but similarly the Courts have to remain alive to the primary principles that when an aggrieved person without adequate reason invokes the jurisdiction of the Court at his own leisure, there is always a legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage is liable to be entertained or not. Needless to say that delay stands in the way of equity. Delay in approaching the Court is not liable to be ignored without any justification. 14.

In the case in hand, from a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, we find that not only the appellants)petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court after 12 years but also there is no explanation even worthy namesake for inordinate delay and latches. 15.

In view of the settled canons of law we find no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge non)suiting the appellants)petitioners in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. The appeal is thus devoid of any merits and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.

!"#$%& Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No