SARITA TIWARI Vs. GANGA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two petitioners, seek the relief of being granted by their erstwhile employer/respondent no.1/school, monetary emoluments as per the 6th Central Pay Commission Report which became applicable to schools in terms of the circular of the Directorate of Education dated 11.2.2009.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that petitioner no.1 worked in the respondent no.1 -school till 31.3.2009 and petitioner no.2 worked in the respondent no.1 -school till 3.2.2009. Both the petitioners resigned from their services with the respondent no.1/school w.e.f 31.3.2009 and 3.2.2009 respectively. The circular of the Directorate of Education dated 11.2.2009 allowed schools to clear the arrears by 31.10.2009 and therefore the cause of action accrued to the petitioners for grant of benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report and monetary emoluments thereunder lastly on 31.10.2009. A writ petition therefore had to be filed in around the period of three years, and which is the limitation period applicable if the petitioners had chosen to file a suit against the respondent no.1 -school for recovery of monies on the basis of the circular of the Directorate of Education dated 11.2.2009.

(3.) THE present writ petition however has been filed in September, 2014 ie much after the limitation period expiring in October, 2012, and, even the legal notice preceding the writ petition was given by the petitioners to the respondent no. 1 only on 20.3.2014 ie beyond the three years period expiring on 31.10.2012. . Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are exercised in accordance with the laws and not to cause violation of the laws. What is a limitation period for a suit being time barred, is applied qua a writ petition to which Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply, by applying the doctrine of delay and laches. There can be overlooking of the doctrine of delay and laches only in those cases where a representation is given by a petitioner and which is pending for consideration, and in which circumstances depending on the facts of a particular case, since representation is pending consideration, no cause of action can be said to have arisen for the petitioner to approach the court, however, in the present case, once the limitation commenced definitely w.e.f 31.10.2009, and no representation of the petitioners was pending for grant of monetary emoluments, there is no reason why a writ petition filed in September, 2014 i.e beyond 31.10.2012 should be entertained by the Court. Writ petition is therefore clearly barred by the doctrine of delay and laches. 5. Counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 237/2013 titled as Deepika Jain Vs. Rukmini Devi Public School and Ors. decided on 23.9.2013, however, this judgment nowhere shows that the issue with respect to limitation and the doctrine of delay and laches was considered and decided in this writ petition, and therefore the judgment in the case of Deepika Jain relied upon by the petitioner will not in any manner help the petitioner. For the sake of convenience the subject judgment dated 23.9.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.237/2013 itself is reproduced as under: -