A.P. Nadda vs H.R.T.C. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—There is no dispute that with respect to similarly situated employees who had approached this Court by way of CWP (T) No. 4592 of 2008, titled as H.K. Gupta v. H.R.T.C. and Ors., decided on 21.2.2011, the claims stand rejected and petition dismissed.

According to the learned Counsel for the parties the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in H. K. Gupta''s case (supra) wherein also the very same seniority list, which is impugned herein was assailed. In H.K. Gupta''s case (supra) the Court has held as under:

In the present case, regulation 11 (7) is as follows:

RELATIVE SENIORITY OF DIRECT RECRUITS AND PROMOTERS:

The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre.

The regulations are very explicit, clear for determining the inter se seniority among direct recruits and promotees. The regulation 11 (7) specifically provides that relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre. It has nothing to do with fitment or rotation. The judgments relied by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, noticed above, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not the case of the Petitioner that as per the length of service he is senior to private Respondents. There is specific regulation 11(7) for determining inter se seniority among direct recruits and promotees, which has not been challenged by the Petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that as per regulation 11(7) the Petitioner is senior to private Respondents as Regional Manager.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that now the private Respondents have already retired. The petition was filed on 26.9.1997 in which promotions made in pursuance to departmental promotion committee meetings held on 24.6.87, 12.9.89 and 18.11.91 have been assailed. It is not possible to believe that the Petitioner had no knowledge of seniority list dated 25.9.1989 when it was circulated. It is the stand of the Respondent No. 1 that seniority list dated 25.9.1989 was circulated to all the Heads of Offices in H.R.T.C. for information and at that relevant time, the Petitioner was Head of Office of H.R.T.C. at Chamba. The Petitioner remained silent. He raised grievance only after the issuance of provisional seniority list dated 9.9.1996. The position had settled by the time the Petitioner filed the present petition in the year 1997. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is hit by delay and laches. The settled position cannot be unsettled with the passage of time more particularly when the Petitioner has failed to make out a case on merits. No case for review DPC has been made out. Thus, seen from any angle, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed by him.

As a result of above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Consequently the present petition is dismissed.