IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Shri Siekedo Yhoshu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Nagaland - Respondent
WP(C) 220 of 2021
Decided on : 17-10-2023
Promotion - Delay in Approaching Court - Applicability of Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2018 - Notional Promotion - Delay and Laches
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Deputy Director/General Manager and review of a 1992 decision. He claimed that he was unjustly denied promotion and superceded by a junior. He also sought the benefit of an Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2018, which allowed post-retirement benefits for missed promotions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court, 29 years for the 1992 issue and 12 years after retirement, was unreasonable. The Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2018 was found inapplicable to the petitioner's case. The court also noted that the petitioner had already received a time-bound scale and pension adjustment.
Issues: Delay in approaching the court, applicability of Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2018, notional promotion, and delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court was not sufficiently explained and constituted delay and laches. It also found that the Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2018 was not applicable to the petitioner's case. The court considered the petitioner's receipt of a time-bound scale and pension adjustment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's unreasonable delay in approaching the court and the inapplicability of the Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2018 to the petitioner's case.
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. Zasitsolie, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Siekedo Yhoshu praying for issuance of directions to the respondent authorities for consideration of his representation dated 14.11.2008, whereby the petitioner prayed for granting him promotion to the post of Deputy Director/General Manager and for setting aside the letter No. I&C/NL/15/2019/7 dated 16.04.2021, whereby the prayer for holding review DPC 1992 in the light of judgment dated 27.08.2020 passed by Nagaland Lokayukta Case No. A-NLP-2/2019 was rejected on the ground that the Government does not find merit to forward proposal for review of DPC 1992 in respect of petitioner and for other connected reliefs.
3. The petitioner’s case, in brief is that before joining the Department of Industries and Commerce, Nagaland, Kohima, the present petitioner had served as an LDA (Lower Division Assistant) in the Department Office of the Inspector General of Police since 08.09.1972. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as LDA in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat on 08.10.1973 and again by order dated 09.03.1981, he was appointed to the post of Extension Officer Class III, Non-Gazetted, under the Department of Industries and Commerce, Nagaland, Kohima and on 01.06.1993, he was promoted to the post of Functional Manager and was posted to the Office of General Manager, District Industries Centre Shazouba, Kohima and thereafter, no promotion was given to him and he retired from the said post on completion of thirty seven (37) years of his service on 13.10.2009.
4. Thereafter, by Notification No. ID/A(1)44/81 dated 25.03.1992 issued by the respondent No.2, four (4) numbers of Extension Officers including Shri O. Temsu Ao, who was junior to the present petitioner were promoted to the post of Functional Manager (Class-I, Gazetted). The said notification was kept in abeyance for sometime however, again on 26.05.1992 the notification issued on 25.03.1992 was modified and it was stated that the officiating promotion of Shri O. Temsu Ao will come into effect from the date of said modification order and his regularization in said officiating promotion shall be subject to the decision of departmental promotion committee in due course.
5. Thereafter, on 14.08.1992, the present petitioner wrote to the Advisor Industries to the Government of Nagaland for consideration to his promotion, however, the same was not considered and thereafter, it is only on 01.06.1993 by Notification No. ID/A/1/44/81 (Part) the present petitioner was promoted along with two others to the post of Functional Managers of the Nagaland Industries Services (Class-I, Gazetted). However, the representation regarding his super-session by his junior, namely, Shri O. Temsu Ao was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations for restoration of his seniority over Shri O. Temsu Ao, however, no heed was paid by the respondent authorities to the said representations.
6. That on 14.11.2008, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the respondent no. 2 for his promotion to the post of Deputy Director/General Manager/Deputy General Manager. The said representation was reported to be misplaced by the respondent authority, however, on 27.11.2008, the Additional Director of Industries and Commerce, Nagaland forwarded the proposal for promotion of the present petitioner to the post of Deputy Director/General Manager to the respondent No.2, i.e., the Commissioner and Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Kohima.
7. Thereafter, by Memorandum dated 15.05.2009 a tentative seniority list of the Assistant Director/Functional Manager/Handloom Production Officer under the Department of Industries and Commerce as on 01.05.2009 was issued wherein the petitioner’s seniority was placed bel
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu
City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala
Durga Prashad v. Controller of Imports and Exports
Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal
Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar
Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn.
The court emphasized the principle of delay and laches, highlighting that unexplained delay in approaching the court may hinder the exercise of equitable jurisdiction. It also clarified the condition....
Delay in challenging promotions can bar relief; timely action is crucial in promotion matters.
Claims for promotional increments must be raised within a reasonable time, particularly before retirement; delay can bar relief.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.