V.P. Jaiswal and Others vs The State of U.P. and Another

We have heard Shri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.

All the petitioners were working as teachers and principals in State Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges. The petitioner no. 1 retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1990; the petitioner no. 2 retired on 31.12.1986; the petitioner no. 3 retired on 30.6.1987; the petitioner no. 4 retired on 30.6.1989; the petitioner no. 5 retired on 30.6.1995 and the petitioner no. 6 retired on 30.6.1998.

By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for directions to provide them the pay scales of Principal of Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges with effect from the date Smt. Rajni Singh was given promotion on the post of Principal.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Shri Surendra Nath Mishra filed a Writ Petition No. 10520 of 1988 in the Lucknow Bench of this Court. By judgment dated 21.7.1994 the Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Nath Mishra vs. State of UP and others (1995) 1 UPLBEC 295, found that the lecturers recruited by the Commission for appointment in the Post Graduate Colleges prior to June 5, 1972 shall be senior to the lecturers appointed by the Commission in Degree Colleges. The Court found that Rule 20 (1) (c) of U.P. Higher Education (Group-A) Services Rules, 1985 is not retrospective in nature, but in effect it relates back to 05.6.1972, meaning thereby a Lecturer appointed by 04.6.1972 in the Post Graduate College would be senior to the Lecturer, who was appointed in Degree College. Rule 20 (1) (c) of the Rules of 1985 was declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional. A writ of mandamus was issued to place the name of the petitioner in the seniority list and accordingly a direction was issued to determine the seniority.

It is alleged that in pursuance of re-determining the seniority one Smt. Rajni Singh was given promotion on the post of Principal in Degree College and Post Graduate College. She was junior to the petitioners and other persons placed upto serial nos. 1 to 48 of the seniority list circulated on 24.9.2002. Her appointment as Principal gave rise to several claims. In pursuance to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 30676 of 2005 (Syd. Abdul Sattar vs. State of UP and others); 10985 of 2004 (Gulab Shankar Lal and others vs. State of UP and others); 10520 of 1980 (Surendra Nath Misra vs. State of UP and others) decided on 21.7.1994, the State Government by its order dated 26.8.2008 gave notional promotions and consequential benefits to Shri Syd. Abdul Sattar, Dr. Satish Chandra Verma, Dr. Gulab Shanker Lal, Dr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Dr. Vikramaditt Singh, Shri Ram Kumar Sharma and Late Shri Vijay Shanker Srivastava.

The petitioners claim that they are also similarly situate as the persons, who have been given the benefit of notional promotion and consequential benefits by Office Memorandum dated 26.8.2008.

The petitioners retired more than 10 years'' ago. There is absolutely nothing to show nor there is any pleading that the petitioners at any time after their retirement, submitted representations raising their claim. They did not make any representation even after 21.7.1994, when the judgment in Surendra Nath Mishra''s case was delivered.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the notional promotions given by the State Government in the year 2008 by Office Memorandum dated 26.8.2008, gave rise to the cause of action to the petitioners, after which they made representations.

In our view the petitioners cannot be given the benefit of notional promotion as they accepted the settlement of all claims on their retirement and did not raise the issue of seniority at any point of time. The Court cannot permit the matters, which have been settled and closed, to be agitated after such a long time. The law of repose does not permit the old issues to be revived after such a long period of time. The question of seniority and promotion must be agitated at the relevant time without unreasonable delay.

The writ petition is barred by gross laches, which have not been sufficiently explained, and is accordingly dismissed.