NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved