J.A. James vs The Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The appellant preferred the writ petition for direction on concerned respondents to count his experience rendered prior to October 1963 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and thereby, to shift back his date of promotion to such post of Assistant Engineer from 1975 to 1969. The learned Single Judge, having found no merit, dismissed the writ petition.

The case of the appellant is that he was in the services of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") and having more than 2 1/2 years of experience, applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Tuticorin Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Port Trust") pursuant to employment notice published in the newspaper "Hindustan" on 06.07.1963 and he was appointed to such post of Junior Engineer on 05.10.1963.

It appears that, pursuant to a direction of this Court, his case was considered for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and he was promoted in the year 1975. The petitioner has neither enclosed a copy of the order of promotion nor given the exact date of promotion. It is accepted by parties that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion as per rule i.e. merit-cum-seniority. After more than 9 1/2 years of his promotion, he preferred the writ petition for his retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1969 (exact date not given by the appellant). One of the grounds taken was that the respondent had not counted his experience of more than 2 1/2 years while he was functioning under the Corporation prior to his appointment under the Port Trust.

There is nothing on the record to suggest, if any cause of action took place for promotion with effect from the year 1969. If certain persons were promoted on 10.06.1966, that will automatically not give any cause of action to give promotion with effect from 1969, that too after about 18 to 20 years, i.e. 1986, when the writ petition in question was preferred. In the earlier writ petition, when the Court directed to consider his case, no direction was given to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from any particular retrospective date or year.

In the circumstances and there being no cause of action and being unexplained inordinate delay, no relief can be granted to the appellant who retired from service on 31.07.1994. Further, we find that no case is made out to count the experience of the appellant while he was in the Corporation for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, particularly, such experience having already been taken into consideration for initial recruitment against the lower post of Junior Engineer. There being no merit, the writ appeal is dismissed. But, there shall be no order as to costs.