Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Debi Prasad Satapathy, approached the High Court of Bombay seeking a writ to direct the respondents, Union of India and Airports Authority of India, to promote him to the post of Assistant Manager (Technical) on a regular basis with retrospective effect from 4 July 2002, along with consequential benefits, and to declare the withdrawal of his promotion as arbitrary. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Technical Assistant in 1988 and was promoted under the career progression scheme to Assistant Manager (Technical) with effect from 1 August 2000, and subsequently to the regular post with effect from 4 July 2002. However, within two months, his name was deleted from the promotion list. He was later served with a memorandum on 6 October 2003 alleging that he had falsified documents and claimed excess amounts during a training programme in 1999, resulting in a penalty of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect, imposed on 2 January 2004. The penalty period ended on 31 December 2005, and he was granted regular promotion with effect from 1 January 2006 by an order dated 3 April 2007. He contended that the withdrawal of his promotion on 25 September 2002 was without notice or hearing and that no disciplinary proceedings were pending at that time. He relied on a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision granting similar relief to a colleague. He explained the delay in filing the writ petition in 2014 by stating that he made repeated representations to the authorities, which were not responded to, and that the cause of action was kept alive. The respondents argued that promotion under the career progression scheme was subject to clearance from disciplinary and vigilance angle, that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and penalized, and that he was promoted after the penalty period ended. They also contended that the petition was barred by delay. The High Court, without going into the merits, dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches. It held that repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action and that the petitioner had acquiesced in the situation for 12 years. The court observed that the petitioner was not vigilant of his rights and declined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of a tardy and indolent litigant. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner challenged withdrawal of his promotion from 2002 by filing writ in 2014, after 12 years. He relied on repeated representations to explain delay. Held that repeated representations do not give fresh cause of action, and the petition is grossly belated with no satisfactory explanation. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not meant to assist tardy litigants. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 12 years in filing the writ petition seeking promotion with retrospective effect should be condoned and the petition entertained on merits.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches. The court held that repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action and that the petitioner was not vigilant, having approached the court 12 years after the cause of action arose. The court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 in favour of a tardy litigant.
Law Points
- Repeated representations do not give fresh cause of action
- writ petition barred by delay and laches
- extraordinary jurisdiction not exercised for tardy litigants
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 83
Writ Petition No. 2058 of 2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
Rohan Cama, Mandar Soman, Gobinda C. Mohanty for petitioner; Neeta V. Masurkar, Nisha Valani, S.G. Thakur for respondent No.1; Shilpa Kapil for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Union of India, The Chairman Airports Authority of India, The Regional Executive Director Western Region Airports Authority of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction to promote petitioner to Assistant Manager (Technical) with retrospective effect from 4th July 2002 and declaration that withdrawal of promotion was arbitrary.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought promotion with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits; also sought declaration that action of respondents was arbitrary.
Filing Reason
Promotion granted on 4th July 2002 was withdrawn on 25th September 2002 allegedly without notice or hearing; no inquiry pending at that time; petitioner made repeated representations which were not responded to; similarly placed colleague granted relief by Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Previous Decisions
No prior court decisions mentioned in the judgment. Disciplinary penalty of withholding increment was not challenged. Representations remained unanswered. Madhya Pradesh High Court granted relief to Alok Kumar Rawat in WP 1918/2006.
Issues
Whether the writ petition filed after 12 years of the withdrawal of promotion is maintainable despite delay and laches, and whether repeated representations give a fresh cause of action.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that promotion was withdrawn without notice or hearing, no disciplinary inquiry was pending at that time, penalty was unrelated, and he was entitled to promotion from 2002; repeated representations kept cause of action alive; relied on colleague's case.
Respondents contended that promotion under career progression scheme was subject to clearance from disciplinary/vigilance angle; petitioner was charge-sheeted and penalized; after penalty period he was promoted in 2006; petition was grossly barred by delay.
Ratio Decidendi
Repeated representations do not constitute a fresh cause of action, and a writ petition filed after 12 years without satisfactory explanation is barred by delay and laches. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised in favor of persons who are not vigilant about their rights.
Judgment Excerpts
the promotion granted to the petitioner came to be withdrawn/cancelled vide office memorandum dated 25th September, 2002
According to us, the repeated representation did not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner and mere making of representation cannot justify his belated approach.
the petitioner is a person who is not vigilant of his rights and has acquiesed with the situation from 2002 to 2014 i.e. almost for a period of 12 years and we do not feel that we should exercise our extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction to help the tardy and indolent / lethargic litigant
the present writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation
Procedural History
Petitioner was promoted on 4th July 2002; promotion withdrawn on 25th September 2002. Memorandum issued on 6th October 2003; penalty imposed on 2nd January 2004. Penalty ended 31st December 2005; petitioner promoted with effect from 1st January 2006 by order dated 3rd April 2007. Writ petition filed on 23rd June 2014. Leave to amend granted on 6th June 2017; amendments partly allowed on 3rd August 2017. Heard on 5th October 2017; judgment pronounced on 13th October 2017 dismissing petition.
Acts & Sections
- Airports Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2003: Regulation 4(1)(a)(d), Regulation 29
