The petitioner filed a petition for regularization of service, but the Tripura High Court dismissed it in response to an appeal against the writ court’s order. It held that merely filing a representation does not stop the clock and revive a stale cause of action, nor do the mere recommendations of subordinate authorities create a cause of action until the appropriate authority takes action.
The petitioner filed the current appeal in opposition to the Writ Court’s contested decision, which denied the petitioner’s request for regularization of service under the 2008–2009 scheme on the grounds that the doctrine of laches and delay completely precludes it.
The petitioner’s contentions:
The appellant’s learned counsel argued, on behalf of the petitioner, that the respondents should not be allowed to use laches or delay in resolving the petitioner’s legitimate grievance because the petitioner has been serving them for the past 25 years. Additionally, the appellant was persistent in her pursuit of representation, hoping that the respondents would decide to regularize her after recommendations from the Zonal Development Officer, North Zone, TTAADC as late as September 14, 2017, and October 30, 2019, respectively, were made.
Respondent’s points of contention:
The state’s learned attorney objected to the prayer, arguing that a Writ of Mandamus or direction at this point following the scheme’s abolition in 2018 would open a Pandora’s box in cases that are out of date and that the appellant did not meet the requirements for Class-X pass eligibility, so no regularization could be made in violation of the current regulations.
The Court’s observations:
After reviewing the contested order, the court determined that it is free from defects and does not need the court to get involved at the appellant stage. Furthermore, it was stated that the petitioner had been overseeing the case for nearly 14 years after the regularization scheme was established in 2008 before bringing the case before the Writ Court in 2022, after the scheme was abolished in 2018. It was further stated that the mere act of filing representation does not stop the passage of time and resurrect a stale cause of action.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the mere recommendations made by subordinate authorities do not give rise to a cause of action until the relevant authority makes a decision. Moreover, the Uma Devi case decision, which was rendered once, cannot be used to continue providing relief to litigants who wait on the sidelines when other conscientious people approach the court within a reasonable amount of time to have their complaints addressed.
The Court’s ruling:
The contested order was upheld by the court, which rejected the appeal.