High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Krishna Murari Tiwari v. Director General/Finance Controller Family Welfare & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 1643 of 2002  RD-AH 3163 (20 September 2005)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 1643 OF 2002
Krishna Murari Tiwari ------------- Petitioner
Director General/Finance Controller,
Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow & Ors.------------ Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the relief of grant of 5 annual increments from 1994 to 1999, which had been withheld by the respondents.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been granted the benefit of the Personal Pay-scale fixing his salary at Rs.9000/-. Subsequently, he retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30th September, 1999. This writ petition has been filed on 7th January, 2002 seeking the aforesaid relief. Shri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to why the demand had never been made by the petitioner during his service and how the objection could be raised after more than two years from the date of his retirement. Nor he is in a position to explain why the petitioner had been deprived of the benefit, he is claiming now. The only submission made by the petitioner's counsel is that he is entitled to the relief granted in Writ Petition No. 25477 of 1988 Smt Vijay Lakshmi Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., decided on 2.4.1999. However, Mr. Yadav is not in a position to explain how does he claim the benefit of the said judgment.
If some person has taken a relief from this Court by filing a writ petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen, petitioner cannot take the benefit thereof by filing a writ petition belatedly. Petitioner cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.
In State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayaya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.
Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366, observing as under:-
"Suffice it to state that appellants may be sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had impetus from Veerpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratio.... desparate attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by them in various cadre.... are not ameanable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well."
In M/s. Roop Diamonds & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1989 SC 674, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches observing as under:-
"There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they have not persued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and close to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided."
Thus, petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit of the said judgment of this Court for explaining the delay etc.
In view of the above, petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.