Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHNA MURARI TIWARI versus DIRECTOR GENERAL/FINANCE CONTROLLER FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishna Murari Tiwari v. Director General/Finance Controller Family Welfare & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 1643 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 3163 (20 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 1643 OF 2002

Krishna Murari Tiwari       -------------    Petitioner              

         Versus.

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.

20.9.2005

AKSI


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.