'For 20 Yrs He Was Sleeping': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea Against 2002 Penalty Stopping Yearly Increments
Dismissing a government employee's plea challenging a penalty which stopped three annual grade increments as well as rejection of appeal and review petitions, the Rajasthan High Court observed that his plea was barred by delay of over two decades.Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, "It appears that the petitioner was sleeping over the matter for more than two decades and all of...
Dismissing a government employee's plea challenging a penalty which stopped three annual grade increments as well as rejection of appeal and review petitions, the Rajasthan High Court observed that his plea was barred by delay of over two decades.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said,
"It appears that the petitioner was sleeping over the matter for more than two decades and all of sudden, he woke up after twenty years and approached this Court without giving any plausible explanation in the instant writ petition about the aforesaid inordinate delay".
The petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments in 2002 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. An appeal as well as a review petition were filed against this 2002 order imposing penalty, but these were rejected in 2003 and 2004 respectively.
He then approached the high court in 2024 filing a petition challenging the original order imposing penalty as well as rejection of the appeal and the review petition against that order.
The Court highlighted the settled position of law by making a reference to many Supreme Court decisions.
In the cases of New Delhi Municipal Council v Pan Singh and Others, as well as State of Uttaranchal and another v Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others it was held that irrespective of there being no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226, ordinarily it should be filed within a reasonable period. It was further held that relief to someone who put forth a stale claim could be refused on account of delay and laches because anyone sleeping over his rights was bound to suffer.
Similarly, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v T.T.Murali Babu, it was held that,
“The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity… Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant “a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.”
In this background, the high court observed that the petitioner approached the court after a delay of almost 20 years without any satisfactory explanation for laches and delay, and law had already set its face against such indolent litigants.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Sudershan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
