SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, PURNENDU SINGH, JJ.
Vinay Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14811 of 2021
Decided on : 12-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.P. Dixit, Mr. S.K. Dixit, Mr. S.K. Chaubey, Mrs. Swastika, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, Advocate

Aggrieved persons must approach the appropriate forum within a reasonable period of time from the date of cause of action, and potential impact on third-party rights may be considered in granting relief.

Headnote:

Promotion - Delay in Seeking Promotion - Administrative Chaos

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought promotion to the post of Driver Grade-II, claiming entitlement from 01.04.2013, but were promoted on 24.07.2014. They submitted representations for rectifying the date of promotion, which were rejected. The petition was rejected on the grounds of delay in seeking promotion.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition based on the delay in seeking promotion and the potential administrative chaos that would result from granting the relief sought.

Issues: Delay in seeking promotion, potential impact on third-party rights

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that aggrieved persons must approach the appropriate forum within a reasonable period of time from the date of cause of action. It also considered the potential impact on the rights of others who were promoted during the intervening period.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioners have assailed the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2020 passed in O.A. No. 050/00642/2016.

3. Grievance of the petitioners are that they are entitled to promotion to the post of Driver Grade-II w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and they have been given promotion on 24.07.2014. To rectify the date of promotion dated 24.07.2014 for the first time representation was submitted on 09.09.2015 and 07.06.2016 and it was rejected on 22.01.2016 and 16.08.2016 respectively. Petitioners had cause of action on 01.04.2013, the date on which their names were required to be considered for the purpose of promotion to the post of Driver Grade-II. They did not agitate their right at the relevant point of time. Department promoted petitioners on 24.07.2014. Thereafter, they did not immediately approach the authority to rectify the date of promotion from 24.07.2014 to 01.04.2013. On the other hand, they have submitted representations on 09.09.2015 and 07.06.2016. The same were rejected on 22.01.2016 and 16.08.2016 respectively. In this backdrop, petitioners have presented O.A. No. 642 of 2016 and it was rejected on 30.01.2020. On the question of delay in seeking promotion to the post of Driver Grade-II. In other words, cause of action accrued on 01.04.2013 and further cause of action accrued on 24.07.2014, the date on which petitioners were promoted to the post of Driver Grade-II. They did not agitate their rights immediately having regard to the dates and events.

4. Apex Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Appellant V. State of T.N. reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 held that if an aggrieved person in respect of promotion and seniority must approach the appropriate forum within a reasonable period of time of six months from the date of cause of action. The same has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the latest decision in the case of In Vijay Kumar Kaul and Ors. v. Union of India reported in (2012) 7 SCC 610.

5. In the light of the principle laid down by above-mentioned decisions and the fact that petitioners have also not arrayed such of those persons whose rights are likely to be effected. In other words, persons who were promoted during the intervening period from 01.04.2013 to 24.07.2014 have not been arrayed as necessary and proper party. In the event of granting any relief to the petitioners in promoting them to the post of Driver Grade-II w.e.f. 01.04.2013, third party right is likely to be affected. In other words, allowing the petition would result in administrative chaos in the department.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top