RAJNI MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to grant first ACP Scale with effect from 2.7.1996 and Second ACP Scale with effect from 2.7.2006 and to re -fix her pay/pension and grant all consequential benefits with interest.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher -cum -Supervisor on 2.7.1986. She was promoted as Superintendent on 4.9.2006. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2012. It was submitted that in terms of the ACP Rules, 1998 the petitioner was entitled to First ACP Scale with effect from 2.7.1996 on completion of 10 years regular satisfactory service and second with effect from 2.7.2006 on completion of 20 years regular satisfactory service. The petitioner sent number of representations to the respondents for sanctioning the aforesaid scales but nothing was done. Thereafter, she got served a legal notice dated 4.6.2014, which was also not replied to. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) THE issue regarding delay in invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another : (2006) 11 SCC 464. It was a case in which certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years but should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. They were still in service when the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed. Placing reliance upon that judgment, some of the employees, who already stood retired, filed writ petitions claiming same benefit. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment. The judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India : (1989) 2 SCC 356; State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya : (1996) 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana : (1997) 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy : (2004) 1 SCC 347, it was opined that the persons who approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: