AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral).
Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for following relief:-
“I. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Commerce) from his due date on i.e. the year 2009, on completion of two years of regular service under the applicable R&P Rules of 1973, along with all consequential benefits including fixation of seniority, pay-arrears, increments and pensionary benefits.”
A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Additional Advocate General with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. He submitted that the petitioner has prayed for the relief that he be granted promotion against the post of Lecturer (Commerce) from the year 2009 and also for consequential benefits including fixation of seniority etc. He submitted that, first of all, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner has approached the Court belatedly and further, if the reliefs, as prayed for, are granted to the petitioner, it will affect the seniority of others, who have been promoted against the post of Lecturer (Commerce) before him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has instructions to state that in case the relief is granted to the petitioner, then he will forego monetary benefits and restrict the same as up to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the averments made in the writ petition, this Court concurs with the learned Additional Advocate General that the present writ petition is hit by delay and laches.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been ignored for promotion, which was due to him in the year 2009. If that was so, the petitioner should have approached the Court within some reasonable time as from the year 2009. In fact, the petitioner in this case was promoted against the post of Lecturer (Commerce) in the year 2012, that is on 28.08.2012, upon completion of five years of service. According to him, he should have been promoted after two years of service. This Court is not making any observation on the merits of the issue, but it is again reiterated that the petitioner should have approached the Court within some reasonable time as from the year 2009 or he should have approached the Court at least within some reasonable time after promotion was conferred upon him against the post of Lecturer (Commerce) on 28.08.2012. Approaching the Court after 16 years as from the year 2009 and almost 14 years as from 28.08.2012, cannot be treated as if petitioner has approached the Court within some reasonable time. Therefore, apparently the case is hit by delay and laches.
The submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would forego monetary benefits, also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. The relief claimed by the petitioner is that he be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Commerce) from the due date as in the year 2009. The petitioner was promoted as such in the year 2012. Many Lecturers must have been appointed against the post of Lecturer (Commerce) in between 2009 to 2012. They are not even before the Court. If this relief is granted to the petitioner, then their seniority will be disturbed and that too after years of their having gained promotion to the post of Lecturer (Commerce). Not only this, many of them might have had gained further promotions also and any indulgence shown by the Court to the petitioner at this stage would unsettle the settled things.
Otherwise also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, has been pleased to hold that normally a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches where the remedy is sought by way of filing a writ petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that if the grievance in respect of an order or administrative decision is related to or affects several other persons, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained even if the wrong is a continuing wrong. Relevant paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
“7.To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.”
In the present case, as the issue relating to seniority and promotion is belatedly raised by the petitioner, the same is directly hit by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Tarsem’s case (supra).
Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, as the present petition is hit by delay and laches, the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.