“Courts cannot reopen employment disputes after inordinate and unexplained delays where the petitioner slept over his rights for 22 years before seeking relief.”
Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the single judge’s decision that dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition seeking reinstatement as a clerk in a government high school after 22 years of his termination. The Court held:
- The appellant approached the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 22 years.
- Such a delay bars judicial review, and there is no merit in the appeal.
The earlier judgment of the single judge was upheld.
Facts
The appellant was appointed as a clerk in High School Siris, Aurangabad by one Ram Yatan Paswan. His appointment was terminated on 31 December 1996 on the ground that it was faulty.
After 22 years, in 2018, the appellant filed a writ petition claiming reinstatement, arguing that other clerks appointed in a similar manner by the same headmaster were allowed to continue, whereas he alone was terminated, constituting discrimination.
The writ petition was dismissed by the single judge on 2 January 2023 on the ground of inordinate delay, leading to the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition seeking reinstatement can be entertained after a delay of 22 years from the date of termination.
- Whether allegations of discrimination with similarly appointed clerks justify condoning the delay.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to reinstatement or any relief in law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued:
- His termination was arbitrary and discriminatory as other clerks appointed by the same headmaster continued in service despite similar alleged procedural irregularities.
- The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution was violated.
- The appellant sought reinstatement along with consequential benefits due to the illegal termination.
- The Court should consider the merits of the case and the discrimination faced despite the passage of time.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- The appellant had been removed from service on 31 December 1996 and approached the Court only in 2018 after a lapse of 22 years without any explanation.
- The delay was fatal, and the writ petition was rightly dismissed.
- The appellant’s claim was barred by laches and delay, and no interference was warranted.
Analysis of the Law
- Courts have consistently held that inordinate and unexplained delay bars the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly in service matters.
- The principle was reiterated in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava that stale claims cannot be entertained.
- Even in cases of alleged discrimination, the aggrieved party must approach the Court within a reasonable period.
- Courts are not obliged to reopen employment disputes after decades due to the impact on administration and third-party rights.
Precedent Analysis
- Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010): Delay and laches disentitle a party from claiming relief under Article 226.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015): Stale claims cannot be revived merely because others were given relief unless discrimination is promptly challenged.
- These precedents clarify that claims seeking reinstatement after decades without justification cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The appellant’s removal took place on 31 December 1996, and the writ petition was filed only in 2018, indicating a delay of 22 years.
- There was no explanation for the delay provided by the appellant.
- Even if others similarly appointed were retained, the appellant cannot claim parity after such a delay without challenging the discrimination in time.
- The single judge’s order dismissing the writ petition was correct, and no interference was warranted in the appeal.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding:
- The judgment of the single judge dismissing the writ petition is upheld.
- There is no merit in the appeal.
- No relief can be granted due to the inordinate and unexplained delay of 22 years.
Implications
- Reinforces that employment-related disputes must be challenged promptly under Article 226.
- Delay and laches without explanation are fatal to service claims, even in allegations of discrimination.
- Prevents reopening of stale disputes to maintain administrative certainty and efficiency.
FAQs
- Can an employee challenge termination after 22 years in court?
No, such delays are considered fatal unless satisfactorily explained, and courts generally refuse to reopen such disputes. - Does alleging discrimination allow an employee to bypass delay?
No, even discrimination claims must be raised within a reasonable time to seek relief. - What principle did the Court apply in dismissing this case?
The Court applied the principles of delay and laches under Article 226, holding that inordinate and unexplained delay bars relief.