Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

V. Stanislaus Vs. The District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District and Ors. - (High Court of Madras) (17 Jul 2019)

Any grievance by the employees is to be redressed within the time limit prescribed

MANU/TN/3696/2019

Service

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the Respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner from 1st March, 2002 and to disburse the arrears of salary from 1th March, 2002 to 6th February, 2006, according to the existing pay structure.

The writ Petitioner accepted the order of approval of appointment with effect from 7th February, 2006 and attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31st October, 2013. After retirement, the present writ petition is filed in the year 2014 for a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 1st March, 2002.

Present Court is of the considered opinion that, any grievance, more specifically by the employees, is to be redressed within the time limit prescribed or in the event of no time limit, within a reasonable period of time. The writ petitions filed belatedly, after a lapse of many years, for the redressal of such grievances, cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the present case, though the writ petitioner was appointed on 1st March, 2002, the approval of appointment was granted only with effect from 7th February, 2006. During the relevant point of time, the writ Petitioner has accepted the approval and served in the Institution till his date of retirement. After the settlement of the benefits, he approached the Court in the year 2014 by filing a writ petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to regularize the services with effect from 1st March, 2002 with all monetary benefits. Such an attitude of the employee can never be appreciated nor be entertained. Any person aggrieved must establish his rights at the first instance by approaching the Court of law, within a reasonable period of time.

In the present case, there is an enormous delay in approaching the Court and this apart, the writ Petitioner has not even challenged the order of approval of appointment granted with effect from 7th February, 2006 onwards. This being the factum, the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition is dismissed both on merits and on the ground of laches.

Tags : RIGHTS   REDRESSAL   TIME LIMIT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved