Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21328 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.9.2013.
Banta Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr.J.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioneRs.*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J It has been averred that petitioners no.1 to 6 already stand retired, whereas petitioners no.7 to 9 are working as Agriculture Development Inspectors under the Department of Agriculture, State of Punjab.
The precise claim set up in the present writ petition is for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant them ante dated promotion on the post of Compost Inspector and Agriculture Sub Inspector by revising their promotion orders and making the same effective from 7.2.1994 instead of 29.5.2001 and 15.6.2001 qua petitioners no.1, 6 to 10 and in relation to petitioners no.2 to 5 as Agriculture Sub Inspectors from March, 1997 instead of 29.5.2001 and 15.6.2001.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would place reliance upon an order dated 7.7.2000 at Annexure P-4, whereby one Sh.
Harnek Singh and Sh.
Natha Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspectors have been granted benefit of promotion to the post of Agriculture Inspector (since re- designated as Agriculture Development Officer) w.e.f.7.2.1994.
Counsel submits that the petitioners are similarly situated and their promotions have Lucky 2013.09.26 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP No.21328 of 2013 (O&M) -2- been effected vide orders at Annexures P-7 to P-9 issued on different dates in the years 2001.
Counsel would contend that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of ante dated promotion w.e.f.the year 1994 at par with Sh.
Harnek Singh and Sh.
Natha Singh.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length, I am of the considered view that the claim raised by the present petitioners would not require any adjudication on merits.
On the other hand, the present writ petition deserves dismissal on the sole ground of delay and laches.
The petitiones, admittedly, were promoted as Agriculture Inspectors in the year 2001.
The cause of action, if any, with regard to claiming ante dated promotion w.e.f.the year 1994 at par with Sh.
Harnek Singh and Sh.
Natha Singh, who were so promoted vide order dated 7.7.2000 came to vest with the petitioners immediately upon issuance of their own promotion orders in the year 2001.
Counsel would submit that a representation at the union level was preferred in the year 2001 itself but the respondent-authorities did not act upon the same and as such, the petitioners cannot be penalized on account of the inaction on the part of the State.
It is well settled that filing of representations/reminders/repeated representations would not vest a fresh cause of action.
In matters of promotion and seniority it would be imperative for the employee concerned to approach the courts expeditiously.
Entertaining any claim with regard to promotion at such a belated stage would amount to “unsettling settled matters”.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P.S.Sadasivaswamyy versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC2271has observed in the following terms:- CWP No.21328 of 2013 (O&M) -3- “A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion.
It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time.
But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra- ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matteRs.The petitioner's petition should, therefore have been dismissed in limine.
Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court.
It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work.
We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.”
.
Following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present writ petition is dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches.
Petition dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE September 25, 2013.
lucky