IN THE judgment of the case –Shri John Joseph v. Union of India & two others, delivered on December 16, 2024, Justice M S Karnik and Justice Nivedita P Mehta at the Bombay High Court at Goa, have referred to settled principle of law that a litigant who approaches the Court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time and wakes up from deep slumber ought not to be granted the relief as “delay defeats equity”.

 

In the judgment authored by newly appointed Judge, Justice Mehta, on behalf of the division bench has noted that the petitioner has challenged the order of February 29, 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the Original Application (OA) No. 231/2024 for further ancillary reliefs. The petitioner was employed as an Appraiser of Customs in the Central Excise and Customs Collectorate (Goa) and subsequently joined the promotional post on March 15, 1993 as Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) Ahmedabad (Gujarat). He was temporarily posted as Assistant. Collector at Porbandar by Office Order of April 16, 1993. He continued to work at Porbandar up to July, 1995. Thereafter he was transferred to Goa Regional Unit of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The petitioner expected that he would be promoted as Assistant Commissioner (Senior Time Scale) after a period of four years from March 15, 1993.

 

The petitioner was promoted through the order of April 24, 2000 by the Government of India and this Order was given effect to from April 16, 1997 and not March 15, 1997. The petitioner continued to work till March 31, 2002, the date of his retirement. The contention of the petitioner has been that due to incorrect date of promotion which was noted as April 16, 1997 rather than April 15, 1997, the petitioner missed out one additional increment, which was due on March 1, 2002. The petitioner made numerous representations to the respondent authorities stating therein that his date of promotion should be rectified. However, no action was taken thereon by the respondents. Hence, he filed OA before the CAT challenging non consideration of his representation and seeking necessary correction in date of his promotion with effect from March 15, 1997, with all consequential benefits. In their reply, the respondents raised preliminary objection as regards delay and laches.

 

They have stated further that the petitioner misrepresented before the HC that he has given multiple representations, however the Tribunal has clearly observed that there was no acknowledgement or proof of delivery submitted by the petitioner. The respondents further submitted that in spite of the fact that incorrect date of promotion has been mentioned in the Order of April 24, 2000, which was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, the petitioner failed to take any steps to redress his grievance in time. The respondents have said that the petitioner slept over his rights and approached the Court belatedly and rendered his claim belatedly and turned it into a stale claim. The respondents’ counsel urged that the petition was hit by gross delay and laches and was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has raised his claim almost after 21 years. It is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to allege that the respondents erroneously considered his date of promotion to be April 16, 1997, whereas actual date of promotion as per order should have been March 15, 1997. It was also pointed out that the petitioner retired on March 31, 2002 and when the petitioner was in service, now failed to raise any issue about the actual date of promotion till his alleged representation of September 17, 2021. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner regarding Rule 11 of CCS Rules is baseless.

 

The counsel’s further submission was that the Tribunal while dismissing the OA has made cogent observations in Paragraph six of the Order, which was heavily relied upon by the respondents. The respondents’ counsel also submitted that the petitioner’s claim that he made numerous representations to the respondents is unfounded as there are no acknowledgement/delivery receipt submitted / presented by the petitioner. He had knowledge of the claim but did not assert his right for a period of more than 21 years after the issuance of his promotion order of April 24, 2000. In the circumstances, it was submitted by the respondents’ counsel that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Tribunal. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T T Murli Bau-(2006) 4 SCC 322, its paragraph reads: Thus the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extra-ordinary and equitable jurisdiction.

 

As a constitutional court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it has to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason approached the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes into the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal, but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” Questioning the intention of the petitioner in seeking correction in the date of promotion, according to the Court, the petitioner wants to get an additional increment after antedating the date of his promotion of 1997. His claim is not only belated but also barred by principle of delay and laches. Hence the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted and does not warrant any interference. In view of this the HC has dismissed the petition.