IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches can lead to a waiver of rights, and a petition filed after a significant delay without reasonable cause may be rejected by the court.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Abhisst Thaker on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Pooja Ashar on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to grant the deemed date of promotion from the post of beat guard-III to the post of Forester-III with consequential benefits;

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents decide the representation of the petitioner;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further order which deems to fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed with the respondent – State as a Beat Guard, Class-III vide order dated 09.02.1973 and was promoted to the post of Forester on 13.10.1992 and whereas ultimately the petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2008.

3.1. The petitioner is seeking for deemed date of promotion in the post of Forester w.e.f. 11.11.1982. It appears that the petitioner, for being granted such deemed date, had submitted a representation to the respondent no.2 on 21.10.2021 i.e. approximately after thirteen years of his retirement and whereas, it appears that the respondent no.2 had called for a detailed note from the respondent no.3 herein and whereas, in the interregnum, it appears that the respondents had noticed that the petitioner had received an adverse entry in his ACR for the period between 1979-80 and whereas, the same had not been finalized.

3.2. It appears that vide an order dated 18.02.2022, considering that no documents were available with regard to the adverse entry more particularly since it appears that the petitioner had not made any appeal against the same, the adverse entry had been confirmed. Based upon the adverse entry being confirmed, the respondent no.3 had issued an order stating that the petitioner, upon confirmation of the adverse entry, would not be entitled to any deemed date.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Thaker on behalf of the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner is undoubtedly in delay but considered from the view point of the fact that the respondents did not finalize the adverse entry for the period between 1979-80, therefore, delay is more at the end of the respondents than attributable to the present petitioner and thus submitting, learned advocate would request this Court to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petition is hopelessly delayed as much as it can be. It would appear that while the petitioner in his representation is seeking deemed date in the post of Forester w.e.f. 11.11.1982, the petitioner had served from 1982 till the year 2008 during which period the petitioner did not agitate any grievance. It also appears that even upon retirement, the petitioner did not make any grievance with regard to such deemed date and whereas, as noticed herein above, the petitioner had, for the first time, submitted a representation after thirteen long years of his retirement and after around forty years of the probable date when the petitioner was entitled for promotion.

5.1. While it appears that the respondents have while considering the application of the petitioner noticed that adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner had not been finalized for period between 1979-80, that by itself would not entitle the petitioner to claim any adverse benefit. In the considered opinion of this Court, as it appears, the petitioner had though having been intimated of the adverse entry, not filed any appeal there against and whereas, not having agitated anything with regard to the adverse entry at the relevant point of time, it would not be open for the petitioner now to say that the respondents havi