Case Note & Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh and its education authorities appealed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which declared that the respondent, Rajmati Singh, had continued in service and was entitled to all consequential benefits including salary. The respondent was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 28.01.1971 and was relieved on 04.08.1973 to undergo the Basic Training Course (BTC), which was necessary for her to continue in service. She completed a B.Ed degree instead of BTC and was not permitted to resume duties in 1974. No formal termination order was passed, but her contractual employment came to an end. She made several representations over the decades but did not approach any judicial or quasi-judicial forum. After the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005, she filed a complaint before the State Information Commission, which on 05.03.2009 directed the District Basic Education Officer to communicate the decision on her representations. This led to a communication dated 04.06.2009, which merely narrated the history and did not decide her claim on merits. She then approached the State Public Services Tribunal on 03.06.2010, but her claim was dismissed as barred by limitation. The High Court initially directed the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh, and the Tribunal then directed the authorities to consider her representations, which were rejected on 05.04.2014. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, declared her to have continued in service. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent's claim was inordinately delayed and barred by delay and laches and limitation. The Court noted that she slept over her rights for over 33 years and did not approach any forum until 2010. The communication of 04.06.2009 did not revive the cause of action. The Court also held that she waived her rights and abandoned her employment. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Limitation - Claim for Reinstatement After 33 Years - The respondent, an untrained teacher relieved in 1973 to undergo training, failed to produce required certificate and was not permitted to resume duties in 1974. She made repeated representations but did not approach any judicial or quasi-judicial forum until 2010. The Supreme Court held that the claim was inordinately delayed, stale, and barred by the principle of delay and laches and limitation under Section 5 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. The communication dated 04.06.2009, issued under compulsion of the State Information Commission, did not revive the cause of action. (Paras 10-15) B) Service Law - Abandonment of Employment - Waiver of Rights - The respondent slept over her rights for over 33 years and did not assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court held that she waived her rights and is deemed to have abandoned her employment. (Paras 12-13) C) Service Law - Continuing Wrong - Exception to Delay and Laches - The Supreme Court distinguished the case from continuing wrong cases, noting that the respondent's claim did not involve a continuing wrong as her services were terminated in 1974. The principles in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652 were discussed, but the Court found that the claim was stale and did not fall within the exception. (Paras 18-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent's claim for reinstatement and consequential benefits was barred by delay and laches and limitation, given that she was relieved in 1973 and did not approach a judicial forum until 2010.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the respondent's claim as barred by delay and laches and limitation.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Limitation
- Continuing wrong
- Abandonment of employment
- Revival of cause of action by representation
