Inordinate delay and laches in seeking promotional relief, especially after a substantial period impacting established seniority, bar judicial intervention under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to Respondent No. 2 to consider the Petitioner for promotion from E-4 to E-5 level w.e.f. 01.01.1999, along with all consequential benefits.

2. Preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it is barred by delay and laches, as a period of nearly 21 years has elapsed from 1999, when allegedly the cause of action arose in favour of the Petitioner.

3. Petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer (Vigilance) in ONGC on 19.02.1983 at E-1 level and was subsequently promoted on 01.01.1987, 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1996 to E-2, E-3 and E-4 levels, respectively. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was entitled to promotion to the E-5 level w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and despite being eligible, experienced and meritorious, his junior was given promotion while he was deprived of the same.

4. From the averments in the writ petition, it is evident that Petitioner was aware of his non-promotion way-back in the year 2002 when admittedly, a letter dated 04.07.2002 was received by the Petitioner from the Department informing him that he was not promoted to E-5 level. Thereafter, Petitioner approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, on 01.08.2002 and kept pursuing the matter before the Commission, despite the fact that his grievance with respect to non-promotion could not be redressed in the said Forum. The only other remedy that the Petitioner resorted to was under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein he sought certain documents from the ONGC, including filing of cases before the Central Information Commission (`CIC') for disclosure of ACR entries of other officers and employees, minutes of the DPC proceedings, etc. This was followed by filing a writ petition in this Court in 2019, challenging an order dated 07.02.2018, passed by the CIC, refusing the disclosure of certain documents, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2022. It is, thus, apparent that no steps worth a mention were taken by the Petitioner to approach this Court against his alleged non-promotion in the year 1999 or taking the best case in favour of the Petitioner from 2002, when admittedly, a written communication was received, intimating the Petitioner that he had not been promoted. There is, thus, merit in the contention of the Respondents that the petition is barred by delay and laches, as a period of nearly 21 years has elapsed from the time the alleged grievance, if any, had arisen.

5. The issue of delay and laches, particularly, becomes pronounced in the present case, as the relief sought relates to promotion. It needs no reiteration that in case the said relief is granted to the Petitioner and he succeeds in getting promotion w.e.f. 1999, the obvious consequence would be unsettling the seniority of the other employees/officers, who were in reckoning for promotion with the Petitioner at E-5 level. The effect of entertaining the present writ petition may ultimately lead to unsettling the seniority in the Department, which has remained settled for over two decades, if the Petitioner was to ultimately succeed and this would be against several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, expounding the principle that long-settled seniority must not be unsettled.

6. The question of entertaining a writ petition relating to long standing seniority, when the same has been filed belatedly is no longer res integra and I may to avoid prolixity, profitably allude to only a few. In B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab a