Judgment:
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The petitioners were Working as Junior Clerks with the respondent Mcd for more than five years. A circular dated 28.5.1993 was issued in which consent/option was taken from the Junior Clerks who have rendered at least Five years of service for filling up the posts of Meter Readers in the same pay scale on deputation basis.
(2) It is clearly mentioned in the circular that the period of deputation will be one year in the first instance and shall not exceed three years in any case, after which they may be repatriated as Junior Clerks.
(3) It is also mentioned in the circular that the Junior Clerks posted as Meter Readers by transfer on deputation basis shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit or transfer duty allowance for discharging the job of Meter Readers.
(4) It is also mentioned in the circular that the Junior Clerks so posted by transfer on deputation basis as Meter Readers shall not be eligible for promotion to the vacancies of Meter Reading Inspector and shall be eligible for promotion as Senior Clerk on their usual turn.
(5) It is also mentioned that however, in case any of them is promoted at any time to the post of Senior Clerk, he will have to join as Senior Clerk immediately. It is also mentioned that they would not be entitled to any additional financial benefit or transfer duty allowance in the said circular.
(6) It is also clearly incorporated in the circular that the petitioners were Junior Clerks and are posted as Meter Readers, shall not be eligible for promotion to the vacancies of Meter Reading Inspectors and shall be eligible for promotion to the posts of Senior Clerks on their usual turn. The circular dated 28th May, 1995 and office orders dated 6.8.1993 and 30.9.1993 specifically contained these conditions.
(7) The applications containing the above information were invited. The applications were scrutinized by the Screening Committee and on the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the chief Personnel Officer has approved the posting of 90 Junior Clerks as Meter Readers in their existing scale of pay for a period of one year in the first instance. In this office order dated 6.8.1993 again it has been reiterated that the period of deputation of one year was further extended for the maximum period of two years.
(8) After completing the entire period on deputation now these officers have filed this writ petition in which they have prayed that conditions 1 to 6 attached to the appointment letters by which they were sent on deputation as Meter Readers be quashed and declare that the Petitioners have been appointed by way of selection on regular basis as Meter Readers.
(9) It is further prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners appointment on regular basis on the post of the Meter Readers and the respondents be restrained from transferring them by way of repatriation. If is also prayed that the respondents be directed to implement Government of India's order dated 7th March, 1989 and the Petitioners be treated as appointed as Meter Readers w.e.f. 6.8.1993 on regular/permanent basis and due seniority be given to the petitioners.
(10) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the conditions attached to the appointment letters are clearly illegal and unconstitutional and are liable to be struck down.
(11) It was also argued by Mr. Sharma that the Junior Clerks may be promoted to the posts of Senior Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1320-2950 while the Meter Readers were promoted by the post of Meter Reading Inspectors in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-3275.00 . It was also argued that the petitioners were selected and they have a right to continue on the posts of Meter Readers and cannot be repatriated to the posts of Junior Clerks.
(12) Mr. Sharma also submitted that they cannot be sent on deputation in the same department. This Court issued show cause notice on 2.9.1996 and directed that status quo shall be maintained until the next date.
(13) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the order dated 9.7.1992 passed by Mr. S.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge. According to that order, the petitioners promotional avenues cannot be jeopardised and the proposed transfer of the petitioners is contrary to the said order. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order dated 9.2.1992 deals with direct recruits to the posts of Meter Readers prior to 1989. He further submitted that order was passed on a concession made by the Desu and the promotional avenues of those appointed to the posts of Meter Readers prior to 19.11.1987 would not bejeopardised. He also submitted that the said order odes not prohibits the Desu to make appoint- - ment on deputation to the posts of Meter Readers and to revert them to the original Post of Junior Clerks on expiry of the period of deputation.
(14) Learned counsel also placed' reliance on the judgment of Gujrat High Court, i.e., K.H. Phadnis Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1971(2) Slr 345 to claim that a deputation can only be made outside the parent department. This argument is also devoid of any merit because the posts of Meter Readers and Junior Clerks are two different cadres. The persons from one cadre can be transferred to another cadre on deputation.
(15) In another judgment of the Gujrat High Court Bhagwati Bhatt Vs State of Gujrat 1977(2) Slr 551 the Court mentioned that deputation connotes service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. The posts of Jr. Clerks and Meter Readers belong to two separate cadres and transfer on deputation from one cadre to another is permissible in law.
(16) Looking to the urgency of the matter, it was directed that the matter be disposed of on 17.2.1997. The respondent filed a counter affidavit and also an application to vacate the stay order already granted on 2.9.1996.
(17) Mr. Jayant Nath, learned counsel for the M.C.D. submitted that the respondent vide circular dated 28.5.1993 invited application from eligible Junior Clerks for the posts of Meter Readers and those conditions which have been mentioned above.
(18) Mr. Jayant Nath further submitted that after the applications of the petitioners were scrutinised by the Screening Committee, they were appointed by the office order dated 6.8.1993 and 3.9.1993 to the posts of Meter Readers by transfer on deputation for a period of one year. All the conditions which were earlier incorporated in the circular dated 28.5.1993 were also reiterated in the office order dated 6.8.1993 and 30.9.1993.
(19) Mr. jayant Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that both in the circular and office orders it was mentioned that after the period of deputation, the petitioners shall be repatriated as Junior Clerks. It was also categorically mentioned that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit or transfer duty allowance for discharging the duties of Meter Readers. In both the aforesaid circular and office orders, it was mentioned that the Junior Clerks who have been sent on deputation as Meter Readers shall not be eligible for promotion to the vacancies of Meter Reading Inspectors and shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Clerks on their usual turn. He submitted that these petitioners have no case either in law or in equity.
(20) He submitted that even at the time of inviting the application, all the conditions were clearly spelt out and the petitioners knew the conditions before going on deputation as Meter Readers. thereforee, after having remained on deputation for the maximum period, they cannot be permitted to challenge the conditions attached to the circular and appointment letters.
(21) Mr. Jayant Nath submitted that this petition is also clearly barred by latches. In case the petitioners were aggrieved by the conditions attached to the office order or by the circular, they either should not have gone on deputation or should have challenged the same in the year 1993. After having completed the entire period of deputation, they cannot be heard to say that conditions which were attached to the appointment letter and the office orders were illegal or unconstitutional. Since I am deciding this case on merit, thereforee, I do not consider it necessary to deal with this preliminary submissions of the respondent.
(22) Mr. Jayant Nath placed reliance in the judgment of Supreme Court Ratilal B. Soni and others Vs State of Gujrat and others, : (1990)ILLJ525SC . In this case the court has observed as under: The appointment being on deputation, they could be reverted to their portent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post.
(23) Mr. Jayant Nath also submitted that there is no question of the petitioners being considered for the promotion to the vacancies of Meter Reading Inspectors. This also was made absolutely clear in the circular and the office orders that the petitioners shall not be eligible for promotion to the vacancies of Meter Reading. Inspectors. thereforee, they cannot now make any grievance about the same.
(24) Mr. Jayant Nath also referred a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu : [1975]2SCR356 . In this case the Court has observed as under:
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 extraordinary 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.
(25) I have considered the rival contentions carefully. I have also perused the circular and the office orders. There is no iota of doubt that at the time of inviting the applications itself all the these conditions were clearly mentioned. Now after having remained on deputation for a maximum extended period, the petitioners are not justified in filing this writ petition and challenging the conditions attached to the circular and office orders.
(26) I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The Miscellaneous Applications are also accordingly disposed of.
(27) In the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.