DURGESH RANJAN CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the retired employee of Tripura Jute Mills Ltd., which is a Government of Tripura undertaking. His principal prayer is for granting pay scale for the post of Personnel Officer for the period between 25.10.1987 to 31.12.2014. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Welfare Officer by the said employer in the year 1984. The Personnel Officer appointed on permanent basis, resigned from service and thus, the said post felt vacant on 24.10.1987. The petitioner claims that he was asked by the employer to take charge of the said post on which he performed his duties for a long period of time and for which he was not paid at the scale prescribed under the Rules. The petitioner has given various details of the events which according to him took place between the said periods of 24.10.1987 to 31.12.2014. However, it is not necessary to refer to all of them.

(2.) An affidavit-in-reply dated 7th May, 2019 is filed by one Smt. Purnima Das, Deputy Secretary of Government of Tripura, opposing his petition in which heavy reliance is placed on Judgment dated 13.08.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in a Writ Petition filed by this petitioner and a further decision of Division Bench dated 08.04.2010 of the High Court by which the appeal of the petitioner against the said decision dated 13.08.1999 came to be dismissed. The respondents would point out that in the said proceeding identical issues were raised by the petitioner. His petition and appeal were dismissed by the High Court. They would also raise the ground of delay and laches on part of the petitioner in filing this petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has not made out any case for issuing directions, as prayed for. As noted, the petitioner's cause for non-payment of full scale prescribed for the post of Personnel Officer arose way back in the year 1987. Even if the petitioner's case that he continued to discharge the duties on such post on which he was given charge, right till 31st December, 2014 and that therefore, it was a continuous cause, the same terminated way back in the year 2014. This petition, which is filed in the year 2019, is thus hit by delay and laches. In the meantime, the petitioner also retired on superannuation in May, 2015. I find no explanation for such long and inordinate delay of nearly 5 years in filing the writ petition. As is well settled, for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, grounds of delay and laches would certainly be relevant in the context of a petition which is filed after considered period of time, without explanation for such delay.