TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussion on the financial management of the Nigam. Why the Court should come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that at this belated stage if the relief is given to the respondents who have retired and accepted the retirement, that will cause a huge burden to the Nigam to the tune of ₹ 17,80,43,108/- and there is no sufficient funds for incurring such a huge amount at this belated stage. This will completely ruin the financial condition of the Nigam if all the persons who were not vigilant and did not take up their cause before the Court, it would prove a great set back to the Nigam. In this regard, a reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India Ors. [ 1990 (7) TMI 366 - SUPREME COURT] . In that case the question was to grant pensionary benefit to the provident fund holders of the railways. A submission was made if the Court feels that a positive directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT A. K. Mathur, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. All this batch of appeals involve similar questions of law and fact, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 3. All these respondents are the employees of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (hereinafter to be referred to as the Nigam ) and they were retired on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years. Some of them filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the retirement of the employees of the Nigam on attaining the age of 58 years whereas the State Government employees were allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years and therefore, they should also be allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years. The writ petitions filed before the High Court failed and against that Civil Appeal No.7840 of 2002 and batch of other appeals were filed before this Court. This Court disposed of the case of Harwindra Kumar along with other appeals and held that employees of Nigam are entitled to continue up to 60 years. This has been reported in (2005) 13 SCC 300. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under : 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that so long as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been settled by this Court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition. But the only question is grant of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same but filed writ petitions after the judgment of this Court in the case of Harwindra Kumar (supra). Whether they are entitled to same relief or not ? Therefore, a serious question that arises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this Court ? 6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m year to year. In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition. Therefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere. If a right of appeal is available, this order rejecting the writ petition shall not prejudice petitioners case in any such appeal. 8. Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Ors. v. S.M.Kotrayya Ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 267. In that case the respondents woke up to claim the relief which was granted to their colleagues by the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay. Therefore, the State approached this Court and this Court after considering the matter observed as under : Although it is not necessary to give an explanation for the delay which occurred within the period mentioned in sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 21, explanation should be given for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in Debdas Kumar. The plea of delay, which Mr.Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others there from who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law. 12. The statement of law has also been summarized in Halsbury s Laws of England, Para 911 , pg. 395 as follows : In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are : (i) acquiescence on the claimant s part; and (ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant s part. Acquiescence in this sense does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground alone and more so, where the impugned judgment is legally sustainable. This case does not provide any assistance to the respondents. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that at this belated stage if the relief is given to the respondents who have retired and accepted the retirement, that will cause a huge burden to the Nigam to the tune of ₹ 17,80,43,108/- and there is no sufficient funds for incurring such a huge amount at this belated stage. This will completely ruin the financial condition of the Nigam if all the persons who were not vigilant and did not take up their cause before the Court, it would prove a great set back to the Nigam. In this regard, a reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India Ors. etc. etc. reported in (1990) 4 SCC 207. In that case the question was to grant pensionary benefit to the provident fund holders of the railways. A submission was made if the Court feels that a positive direction cannot be given to the government, it was prayed that at least an option should be given to the respondents either to withdraw the benefit of switching over to pension from everyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
