Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Indra Kumar Mishra vs State Of M.P on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11769
1 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 9th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3459 of 2012
DR.INDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
STATE OF M.P
Appearance:
Dr. Indra Kumar Mishra - petitioner in person.
Shri G. K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief (s):
**7- lgk;rk ;fn dksbZ gks rks&
7-1 ;gfd] ekuuh; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fookfnr vkns’k fnukad 16-07-09
fujLr djus dk d”V djsaA
7-2 ;gfd] izkFkhZ ds vH;kosnu fnukad 12-10-2001] 22-02-2002 ,oa 23-03-
2002 ekU; fd;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA
7-3 ;gfd] jktLo e.My ds ykbczsfj;u in dk osrueku :i;s
6500&10500¼osrueku :i;s 5500&9000½ dks mPp djds ½ fnukad 13-04-2009
ls Lohd`r djus dk d”V djsaA
7-4 ;gfd] izkFkhZ dks fnukad 18-03-86 ls xzaFkiky ds Ikj inksUufr nsdj
leLr osru HkRrks vkfn dk ykHk fn;k tkosaA tSlk fd Jh ch0,u0 nokM+s dks
fnukad 18-03-86 ls vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh ds in ij leLr osru HkRrksa dk ykHkSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:117692 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
fn;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 18-03-86 ls xzaFkiky in ds osrueku dk 24
izfr’kr C;kt lfgr fn;k tkosaA
7-5 ;gfd] foHkkxh; tkap esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 04-11-87 fujLr djds
leLr vkjksi i= vkfn fujLr djsa rFkk :dh gqbZ leLr osru o`f};kWa 24
izfr’kr okf”kZd C;kt lfgr iznk; djkbZ tkosaA
7-6 ;gfd] dqN 36 fnol ds vodk’k Lohd`r dj 53 fnol dk osru e;
24 izfr’kr okf”kZd C;kt dh nj ls iznku dj;k tkosaA
7-7 ;gfd] fnukad 01-04-86 ls fnukad 31-12-85 rd xksiuh; pfj=koyh esa
vafdr izfrdwy fVIif.k;ksa fujLr djsaA
7-8 ;gfd] mDr ds vykok vU; dksbZ lgk;rk tks izkFkhZ ds fgr esa gks mls
iznku djkbZ tkosaA**
2. Petitioner submits that initially he was appointed to the post of
Assistant Grade-II by order dated 04.06.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted
to the post of Librarian by order dated 13.04.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.
5000-150-8000/-. Subsequently, on 05.09.2001, a clarification was issued
stating that due to a mistake crept in the Gazette, the salary of Librarian had
been mentioned as Rs. 1640-2900 instead of Rs. 1600-2720 and the revised
pay-scale was shown as Rs. 5000-8000 instead of Rs. 5500-9000.
Thereafter, he submitted a representation on 12.10.2001 before the
competent authority. Again, representations were submitted on 22.02.2002
and 23.02.2002. The said representations were decided on 16.09.2002.
Piqued by the same, petitioner filed W.P. No. 29/2003 (S), which was
decided on 24.07.2008 by the writ court directing the respondents to decide
the petitioner’s representation after providing him an opportunity of being
heard. Thereafter, between 11.12.2008 and 12.02.2009, the representation of
petitioner was reconsidered. Petitioner submitted written submissions and
also made a statement before the competent authority. On 20.02.2009, the
competent authority of the department submitted its note/report.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11769
3 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
Subsequently, by order dated 16.07.2009, all the representations of the
petitioner were considered and rejected by the competent authority. It is
further submitted that the competent authority/respondents decided the
representations jointly and not separately. Petitioner further submits that the
representation was not decided within three months and that no proper
personal hearing was extended to him. It is also submitted that the impugned
order was issued after a delay of nearly two months. Further, it is pleaded
that different pay scales have been granted to Librarians of the High Court
and Administrative Tribunal. Although the qualification for the post of
Librarian is the same yet petitioner has not been granted the same pay scale.
Instead of Rs. 6500- 10500/-, petitioner has been granted a lower pay scale
of Rs. 5500-175-9000/-. It is further submitted that the order dated
16.07.2009 rejecting the representation is liable to be quashed. Petitioner
claims entitlement to the pay scale of Librarian, i.e., Rs. 6500- 10500/- with
effect from 13.04.1999, along with all consequential benefits. It is also
submitted that petitioner is entitled to all benefits granted to Shri B.N.
Dawade with effect from 18.03.1986. It is further submitted that the order
passed in the departmental inquiry dated 04.11.1987 is not in accordance
with the service rules and petitioner is entitled to all increments and leave
encashment for 53 days instead of 36 days. It is further submitted that the
adverse Confidential Report for the period from 01.04.1985 to 31.12.1985 be
expunged. To strengthen his submissions, petitioner places reliance on the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 29204/2019 (All
India Naval Kishore Association v. Union of India), decided on 27.07.2022
and submits that he is also entitled to the similar pay scale.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11769
4 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondent/State submits that multiple reliefs have been sought by
petitioner in the present petition. The petitioner is claiming reliefs pertaining
to the years 1986, 04.11.1987, and the period from 01.04.1985 to
31.12.1985. It is further submitted that multiple reliefs cannot be sought in a
single petition. Furthermore, there is delay and laches, as petitioner did not
file the writ petition during the course of his service. Petitioner stood retired
on 30.09.2009 and after retirement he filed earlier writ petition i.e., W.P. No.
29/2003(s). It is further submitted that in compliance of the order passed in
the earlier round of litigation, proper opportunity of hearing was provided to
petitioner and his statement was recorded by the competent authority. After
considering all facts, the representation of petitioner was decided by the
impugned order. It is further submitted that the rules pertaining to the
appointment of Librarians in the Board of Revenue, the High Court and the
Administrative Tribunal are different. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim the
pay scale granted to Librarians of the Board of Revenue, High Court and
Administrative Tribunal. It is also submitted that the pay scale of Rs. 5500-
175- 9000/- was wrongly granted to petitioner and was later amended by
order dated 05.09.2001. Petitioner is entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.
5000-150-8000/-(Annexure R/1) which he has not challenged. It is further
submitted that the judgment cited by petitioner, All India Naval Kishore
Association (supra), is not applicable in the present case. In that case, relief
was granted based on a report recommending removal of disparity which
was accepted by the Central Government. In the present case, no such
commission was constituted and the facts and grounds are different.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11769
5 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
4. Having heard petitioner who is present in person and learned counsel
for respondent/State and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that
petitioner has sought multiple reliefs pertaining to different periods, which
cannot be appropriately adjudicated in a single writ petition. It is also evident
that there is a considerable delay and laches, as the petitioner approached
this Court after retirement, despite the cause of action having arisen during
service. Further, it is not in dispute that in compliance of order passed in
earlier round of litigation, due opportunity of hearing was afforded to
petitioner and his representation was duly considered and decided by a
reasoned order. This Court also finds substance in the submission put forth
by learned Government Advocate that the rules governing appointment and
pay scales of Librarians in different institutions are distinct and therefore,
petitioner cannot claim parity with Librarians of the Board of Revenue, High
Court or Administrative Tribunal.
5. The law with respect to delay and laches is settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in large number of cases. No benefit can be extended to the
sleeping litigant.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. vs.
Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 has opined as under:-
“54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a
petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in
case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know
of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same
cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A
litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus
from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had
approached the Court within a reasonable time.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11769
6 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
7. A Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. (M/s) vs
Government of India, (DB) reported in I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53 relying upon
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
“10. Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that
appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it
to any relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and
Others, AIR 2007 SC 1365 the Supreme Court has held that
delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder
Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the Supreme Court has observed that
discretionary relief can be provided to one who has not by his
act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a
vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana
v. Aravali Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held
that where third party rights are created, the High Court should
not interfere. Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it
has been held that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction
does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of
third parties crystallizes in the interregnum.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn.
Ltd. vs K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as follows:
6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in
mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate
case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary
powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the
lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the
opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the
matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out
in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of course, the
discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11769
7 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock
in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd [(1874) 5
PC 221 : 22 WR 492] (PC at p. 239) was approved by this
Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [AIR 1967 SC 1450]
and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor
Service [(1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] . Sir Barnes had
stated:
“Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is
not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it
would be practically unjust to give a remedy either
because the party has, by his conduct done that
which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a
waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect
he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy,
yet put the other party in a situation in which it
would not be reasonable to place him if the
remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of
these cases, lapse of time and delay are most
material. But in every case, if an argument against
relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded
upon mere delay, that delay of course not
amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the
validity of that defence must be tried upon
principles substantially equitable. Two
circumstances always important in such cases are,
the length of the delay and the nature of the acts
done during the interval which might affect either
party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in
taking the one course or the other, so far as it
relates to the remedy.”
9. It is further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar vs District Magistrate, Basti reported in (2012) 3 SCC 311 that :-
“10. … It is time and again, stated that a party who has slept
over his right since is not entitled to the discretionary relief of
the High Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11769
8 WP. No. 3459 of 2012
10. Moreover, the reliefs sought pertain to years 1985, 1986, 1987 and
13.04.1999. Petitioner having failed to approach this Court at the relevant
point of time, the petition suffers from delay and laches. The service
conditions and governing rules applicable to petitioner, i.e., Librarian in the
Board of Revenue, being different from those applicable to Librarians in the
High Court and Tribunal, no claim of parity on the principle of ‘equal pay
for equal work’ or on the basis of similar qualifications can be sustained.
11. If the aforesaid settled legal proposition of law is applied to the facts
and circumstance of the present case, this Court is not inclined to reopen the
stale claims.
12. Considering the delay in approaching the Court, this Court does not
deem it appropriate to extend any relief to the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/29/2026
12:34:44 PM