Claim Of Additional Increment Is Not A Continuing Ground In Service Matters, No Remedy In Case Of Delayed Petition: Meghalaya High Court
The High Court of Meghalaya has held that the claim of additional increment in service matters is not a continuing ground and therefore, in cases of long delay in filing a petition, relief cannot be granted on grounds of delays and laches.The Division bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh were considering the appeal preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners against...
The High Court of Meghalaya has held that the claim of additional increment in service matters is not a continuing ground and therefore, in cases of long delay in filing a petition, relief cannot be granted on grounds of delays and laches.
The Division bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh were considering the appeal preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners against a Single bench order that had dismissed the claim of the appellants for additional increments on grounds of delay and laches.
The appellants are Assistant and Associate Professors in a college who claimed that they were denied the increment under a scheme recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission and adopted by the Government of Meghalaya on 31.12.2008. They claimed to be entitled to additional increment from 2013. They had made a representation to the Principal of the college on 03.02.2020.
The Single Judge had rejected the petition on the ground that there was a delay of more than eight years in making a representation to the college. The court had observed that the cause of action of the appellants was not a continuous one and dismissed their petition on the ground of delays and laches in approaching the Court.
The High Court upheld that judgement of the Single bench and stated that the appellants had acquiesced their rights by delaying the matter for more than eight years. It noted that since additional increment does not constitute a continuing ground, the delay in filing the petition could not be overlooked.
“As additional increment is not a continuing ground and that the appellants/writ petitioners have slept over the matter for more than eight years, we cannot wake up the sleeping persons from the slumber to grant the relief” the Court held.
Case title: Smti. Amanda B. Basaiawmoit & Ors., vs. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt., of Meghalaya, Education Department & Ors. (WA No. 18 of 2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Meg) 14