Summary
An untrained assistant teacher in Rai Bareli was relieved in 1973 to undergo Basic Training, but produced a B.Ed. certificate and was not allowed to resume duty in 1974. She kept making representations for over three decades. In 2009 she obtained a State Information Commission direction that her representations be answered. The Allahabad High Court later declared her in continuous service with arrears of more than 40 years. The Supreme Court set that aside. Repeated representations, and replies given under compulsion, do not revive a stale cause of action. The Information Commission cannot decide service disputes, and the claim was barred by delay, laches and limitation. Because the State had let an earlier remand order become final, it awarded her Rs 5 lakh lump-sum compensation.
Issues
- Whether a claim for reinstatement by a teacher not allowed to resume duty in 1974, first litigated in 2010 after an Information Commission direction, was barred by delay, laches and limitation.
Provisions considered
- State Information Commission (complaint jurisdiction), Right to Information Act, 2005The Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes or grant service benefits; its direction to communicate a decision, and the reply it compelled, did not revive the cause of action. (¶¶ 12, 15, 22)
- Section 5, U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976A challenge in 2010 to a termination or deemed abandonment of 1974 was hopelessly time-barred, and the Tribunal's 2010 dismissal was correct. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Held
- A citizen must assert rights before an appropriate forum within reasonable time; repeated representations do not give rise to or revive a cause of action, and by failing for over 33 years to seek a declaration or mandamus the respondent waived her rights and is deemed to have abandoned the employment. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The 2009 communication was a history of events sent under compulsion of the Information Commission, not a decision on merits; following Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob, replies to stale representations or orders made on a direction to consider them do not furnish a fresh cause of action, and Sugna Devi is distinguishable. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Undue sympathy dehors the law breeds indiscipline and burdens the exchequer; the High Court erred in placing the onus on the State and awarding arrears of over 40 years for some 2½ years of temporary service. (¶ 21)
- Because the State acquiesced in the 2012 remand order and so helped revive the claim, a lump-sum compensation is directed in place of reinstatement or arrears. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 9329 of 2022 allowed; the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) judgment dated 24.01.2017 in Service Bench No. 826 of 2014 set aside and the claim for reinstatement, retiral benefits and arrears rejected; the appellants directed to pay the respondent Rs 5,00,000 lump-sum compensation within two months.