In the recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, dismissed the petition of a contractual employee, who challenged his dismissal for financial irregularities, citing an unjustified delay of over three years in filing the petition and the principles of delay and laches.
Pokhraj Tarak,petitioner-assessee,was appointed as a ‘Rojgar Sahayak’ on a contract basis on 23.11.2009 for one year, with extensions until 25.11.2017. He was found guilty of financial irregularities amounting to Rs.96,000/- under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna. An inquiry was held, and the assessee refunded the full amount to respondent No.3.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
Despite this, respondent No.4 removed the assessee from his position on 25.11.2017, as the inquiry confirmed the allegations of withdrawing funds from beneficiaries’ accounts. The assessee then filed the present petition against the dismissal.
The Court heard the counsel for both parties and reviewed the documents. It was admitted that the order (Annexure P/1) was stigmatic and passed without inquiry or an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The Supreme Court had ruled that even contractual employees cannot be removed without inquiry.
The assessee filed the petition on 16.03.2021, challenging the order of 25.11.2017, citing a pending representation. However, the Court held that the pendency of the representation did not reset the limitation period, as per previous rulings.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply vs. T.T. Murali Babu (2014), the Supreme Court held that a long delay in approaching the court, even by four years, should not be ignored. It emphasized that the employee’s negligence and delay in challenging the action could cause injustice to others, and the petition should have been dismissed on these grounds.
In Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (2022), the Court reaffirmed that delay and laches prevent claims from being considered, as long dormant claims can harm justice. It explained that claims should be pursued with reasonable diligence, and that delay can impact fairness and certainty in legal matters.
In Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that service-related claims could be dismissed due to delay, but claims based on a “continuing wrong” might still be considered. The Court explained that claims affecting third-party rights, like seniority or promotions, would be rejected if delayed. It clarified that laches involved unreasonable delay causing harm to the other party, while acquiescence meant passive acceptance of a violation, barring a claim after the fact. The Court also stated that if a claimant delayed or accepted a situation without a valid reason, their claim could be denied due to waiver or acquiescence.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
A single bench of Rakesh Mohan Pandey (Judge) observed that the assessee’s act of filing a representation did not justify the delay in approaching the Court, and the petition was not filed promptly after the order dated 25.11.2017.
In light of the relevant facts and Supreme Court precedents, the Court concluded that the assessee failed to make a valid case. As a result, the petition was dismissed, with no order regarding costs.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
