2025:JHHC:29126 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6128 of 2013 ------- Shaukhi Prasad Tanti, son of Late Mithu Tanti, resident of Village Radhiya, P.O. Radhiya, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar, presently posted as Para Teacher, Middle School, Radhiya, Anchal Mohanpur, District Deoghar. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Education, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin- 834004. 2. The Executive Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Parishad, New Co-operative Building, Shyamli Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi- 834002. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 4. District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programming Officer-cum-Special Work Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Mohanpur, At P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. .……Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Adv. : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Adv. For the Res.-JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V ------- 30/18.09.2025 2025:JHHC:29126 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the District Superintendent of Education- Jharkhand Education Project, Deoghar for payment of honorarium to the petitioner which was not paid to him till the date of filling. He further prayed to quash the later dated 8/10/2005, whereby the petitioner was terminated from service. 3. It appears that the letter of termination was passed on 8th October 2005, and the claim for honorarium is of the year 2005, but for the reason best known to the petitioner, the writ application was filed on 27/9/2013. It goes without saying that even a money claim has to be filed within a period of three years and so far as delay and latches in writ is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of Judgment has held that the delay should not be taken lightly by the Writ Court. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu1 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 1 (2014) 4 SCC 108 2025:JHHC:29126 3 “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 4. It further transpires from records that the petitioner during midst of the proceeding has also filed amendment application which was allowed and further the prayer was amended to quash the order dated 2-8- 2018 and 16-8-2024; whereby the claim of the petitioner for honorarium has been rejected. 5. After going through the impugned order, it appears that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not worked since 2005. The claim of the petitioner is that he actually worked for the relevant period. 6. Admittedly, this Court under Article 226 cannot see this factual dispute as to whether the petitioner has worked or not. 2025:JHHC:29126 4 7. Accordingly, having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant application stands dismissed. Pending I.A.s if any, also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) September 18, 2025 Fahim/-