Maharaj Singh vs The Director, A.I.I.M.S.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—The Petitioner in these proceedings claims that he ought to be given due retrospective promotion at least from the year 1994 when he became eligible for consideration to be promoted as UDC.

The Petitioner was appointed as LDC by the Respondent (hereinafter called as the `Centre'') in the year 1999. The memorandum by which he was given appointment, dated 7.8.1989, directed that conditions of service as applicable to staff of the Centre/Institute would be also applicable to him. It is claimed that in spite of this and the Petitioner having been appointed through the Employment Exchange, as per the rules, he was treated as on ad hoc/temporary basis for a considerable period of time. He was given promotion on 29.6.2002 even though as per the rules he was eligible in 1994. The Petitioner''s representation was rejected by the impugned letter dated 20.8.2003. The Petitioner had requested for proper fixation of seniority and also grant of promotion from a retrospective date.

The Respondents in their counter affidavit dispute the claim and state that the Petitioner was initially appointed to a project and that his engagement was not on regular basis. It is stated that subsequently he was absorbed in the Institute in the ye ar 2001; after reckoning his period of service and having regard to his seniority he was promoted in the year 2002.

It is also stated by the Respondents that the Petitioner cannot now come forward after lapse of about 10 years and claim retrospective seniority and antedated promotion. The principle of delay and laches has been put forward as a defense. It is submitted that there is no right to claim retrospective seniority.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated contentions raised in the petition. He also submitted that the Petitioner had been representing to the Respondents for relief since he was overlooked in the year 1994. Initially, his name was not included in the seniority list but after considerable time he was granted absorption in the year 2004 A copy of the letter by which he was absorbed on 26.6.2001 has been produced along with rejoinder affidavit and other letters/memorandum dated 29.1.2003 by which one Shri S.K. Sharma was given promotion from the retrospective date has also been produced.

Learned counsel submitted that in view of these it is apparent that the Respondents are adopting a discriminatory approach and denying the Petitioner''s due claims.

Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no arbitrariness or discrimination. It is stated that the Petitioner has approached this Court in a highly belated manner. It is contended that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner raised his grievance after having been overlooked in the year 2004 It is submitted that once the Petitioner was absorbed regular service in the year 2001 and his name fell for consideration for promotion he was immediately granted it in June, 2002. e cannot turn around now and claim retrospective seniority for which there is no material or rule. Learned counsel for the Respondent also submitted that as far as Shri S.K. Sharma''s case is concerned, although that the person was regularised/absorbed in the same order as the Petitioner yet his claim for promotion was on the basis of Assured Career Progression Scheme. In terms of the scheme the Shri S.K. Sharma had completed 12 years in 1999 itself. Therefore, the Institute granted the benefit from the date he became eligible for the higher grade. It is Therefore contended that what was granted was not promotion but up gradation.

In my considered view, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be entertained. The materials on record show that the Petitioner approached the Respondents and later this Court only after being given a promotion in the year 2002. There is nothing on record that he had approached and claimed relief for consideration immediately after 1994 as is being argued. It is well-settled that in matters of seniority and promotion a litigant has to be vigilant and should approach the Court at the earliest point of t me and in any case within reasonable time. If the Petitioner had any grievance about his non-consideration in 1994 he should not waited for 11 years and come to this Court.

As far as the merits are concerned, there is no rule or regulation pressed into service to show that the Petitioner has a right to be promoted from a retrospective date. As far as the aspect of discrimination is concerned, the Petitioner''s case does not stand on the same footing as that of Shri S.K. Sharma who was not granted promotion but up gradation under the APC Scheme after he has fulfilled the requisite qualifying service of 12 years. This implies that he was engaged in the year 1987. The Petitioner admittedly was engaged/employed on 7.8.1989. Therefore, I am satisfied that no ground of discrimination has been made out.

In view of the above conclusions, the petition is unmerited and it is accordingly dismissed.