2006 (11) TMI 675 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant relief for Age of Superannuation - challenging the retirement of the employees of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Nigam) on attaining the age of 58 years whereas the State Government employees were allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years - whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this Court ? - HELD THAT - In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussion on the financial management of the Nigam. Why the Court should come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that at this belated stage if the relief is given to the respondents who have retired and accepted the retirement, that will cause a huge burden to the Nigam to the tune of ₹ 17,80,43,108/- and there is no sufficient funds for incurring such a huge amount at this belated stage. This will completely ruin the financial condition of the Nigam if all the persons who were not vigilant and did not take up their cause before the Court, it would prove a great set back to the Nigam. In this regard, a reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India Ors. 1990 (7) TMI 366 - SUPREME COURT . In that case the question was to grant pensionary benefit to the provident fund holders of the railways. A submission was made if the Court feels that a positive direction cannot be given to the government, it was prayed that at least an option should be given to the respondents either to withdraw the benefit of switching over to pension from everyone or to give it to the petitioners as well, so that the discrimination must go. Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the Court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the Court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others. We have been given a chart of those nine persons, who filed writ petitions and obtained stay are continuing in service. The benefits shall only be confined to above mentioned persons who have filed writ petitions before their retirement or they have obtained interim order before their retirement. The appeals filed against these persons by the Nigam shall fail and the same are dismissed. Rest of the appeals are allowed and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. There would be no order as to costs. It is submitted that contempt petitions were filed before the High Court. In view of the order passed in this batch of appeals, the contempt petitions will not survive and the same are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Age of superannuation for employees of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam.
2. Applicability of delay and laches in filing writ petitions.
3. Financial implications for Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam due to delayed claims.
4. Judicial discretion in condoning delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Age of Superannuation for Employees of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam:
The core issue revolves around whether the employees of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Nigam) should retire at 58 years, as per existing regulations, or at 60 years, similar to state government employees. The Supreme Court previously ruled in Harwindra Kumar's case that Nigam employees are entitled to continue until 60 years unless Regulation 31 is amended with the state's approval. This judgment mandated that employees allowed to continue due to interim orders should not face recovery, and those retired at 58 years should receive salary for the remaining period up to 60 years.

2. Applicability of Delay and Laches in Filing Writ Petitions:
The significant question was whether employees who accepted retirement at 58 years and filed writ petitions much later should receive the same relief as those who challenged their retirement timely. The court emphasized that delay and laches are critical factors under Article 226 of the Constitution. It cited precedents where relief was denied to those who were not vigilant about their rights and acquiesced in their retirement. The court noted that several writ petitions were filed years after retirement, raising concerns about granting relief due to the delay.

3. Financial Implications for Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Due to Delayed Claims:
The court acknowledged the heavy financial burden on Nigam if relief were granted to all delayed claimants, estimating the cost at Rs. 17,80,43,108/-. It stressed that granting such relief would severely impact Nigam's financial management. The court referenced the principle that financial implications and the need for timely assertion of rights are crucial considerations in such cases.

4. Judicial Discretion in Condoning Delay:
The court discussed the discretionary power of courts in condoning delays, referencing various judgments. It highlighted that condoning delay without proper justification undermines judicial prudence. The court noted that only those who filed writ petitions timely or obtained interim orders should benefit, while others who delayed should not.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that relief should be restricted to those who filed writ petitions while in service or obtained interim orders. The appeals by Nigam against these specific individuals were dismissed, and the High Court's orders were set aside for others. The court emphasized that financial prudence and timely assertion of rights are paramount, and delayed claimants should not be granted relief. Contempt petitions related to this matter were also dismissed.