LI Network
Published on: October 14, 2023 at 12:00 IST
The Supreme Court, in a ruling, underscored the significance of timeliness in service matters and how delay can be seen as a form of acquiescence.
The case involved Bichitrananda Behera, who had belatedly presented a service-related claim regarding the position of Physical Education Trainer. The Court rejected his claim, citing that the delay in pursuing his case amounted to implied consent to the circumstances.
Furthermore, the Court noted that for over 12 years, Behera had not sought any redress through legal channels or authorities, whether it be a court of law, tribunal, or relevant authority, regarding his claim to the position of PET in the school in question.
As a result, the Court concluded:
“In the present case, Respondent No.5 (Behera) should have been non-suited on the ground of delay and laches, which, especially in service matters, has been consistently held to be vital, juxtaposed with the sign of acquiescence.”
The Court cited the judgment of Union of India v. N Murugesan, (2022), which defined acquiescence as a tacit or passive acceptance and emphasized that it implies reluctant consent to an act, usually arising from knowledge of a particular action.
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a Physical Education Trainer in a school, and the Court carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case.
It noted that Behera’s appointment during the period when a stay order favoring a different managing committee was in effect was not illegal or void. The Court found that Behera’s appointment and subsequent service were backed by relevant documents and was lawful.
The Court also highlighted that Respondent No.5 (Behera) did not assert his claims regarding the PET position for over 12 years, indicating acquiescence and laches in service matters.
In conclusion, the Court upheld Behera’s appointment as a PET with service counted from 14.05.1994, and it directed the State of Odisha to grant a lump-sum payment of INR 3 lakhs to Respondent No.5 as a remedy for the time-consuming adjudication process. This decision was made under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: Bichitrananda Behera V. State Of Orissa And Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16238 Of 2017
