The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of delay and laches in filing a writ petition, and the dismissal of the petition on these grounds.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wager in the State Forest Corporation in the year 1975 and continued to work as Daily Wager till January 1978. In the year 1978, the petitioner was appointed as Lumber Guard and the nomenclature of Lumber Guard was later changed to Field Assistant. In the year, 1983, appointments and promotions were made in bulk by the official respondent and even some Daily Wagers were directly promoted as Assistant Supervisors. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Supervisor vide order dated 15.06.1983 and on 04.12.1993, he was promoted along with other employees to the post of Supervisor-1 in the grade of Rs. 1350-50-1500-EB-75-2400 but the promotion of the petitioner was not given retrospective effect i.e. from the year, 1983. It is stated that the date of 1st appointment of the petitioner is 04.02.1978, whereas the date of first appointment of private respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is 08.08.1981 and 24.06.1981 respectively. The petitioner admittedly was senior to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 but despite that they were promoted ahead of the petitioner.

2. In fact, the respondent No. 2 had represented to the authorities that he was senior to certain persons, who were promoted to the post of Supervisor Grade II in the year 1983, as such, he should have been given the benefit of promotion not from 1993 but 1983. The representation filed by the respondent No. 2 was considered by the official respondent and he was given all the promotional benefits with effect from 1983. His case for placement in the seniority list was also recommended vide order No. 114 of JR/97 dated 09.04.1997. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1534 of 1997 praying therein that the respondent No 2, Azad Khan and others, who were juniors to him were promoted in the year, 1983, therefore, he too was entitled to the same relief and treatment. The writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3 was disposed by the Court on 24.12.1999 with a direction that the petitioner be given the same benefit as has been given to respondent- Azad Khan. The said judgment had attained finality and the case of the respondent No. 3 was also considered and he too was given promotion and monetary benefits by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 3 but despite that, he was not given the similar treatment by the respondent No. 1 and his representations remained un-attended. The petitioner, as such, has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the official respondent to grant the promotional benefits and other benefits at par with private respondent Nos. 2 & 3, as the petitioner is admittedly much senior to them.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1, wherein it has been stated that the instant petition is a belated attempt on the part of the petitioner to agitate issue which has become stale. It is further stated that in case the prayer of the petitioner is allowed at this stage, it would amount to disturbing the settled seniority in the Corporation. It is further stated that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were appointed in the State Forest Corporation in the year 1981 and both have retired on 30.04.2012 and 31.03.2010 respectively and at this stage, the respondent-Corporation cannot restore the seniority in favour of the petitioner by giving retrospective effect to his promotion since as many as 39 Block Managers are likely to be affected by such exercise and it would result into multiplicity of litigation. More so, the petitioner has retired from service and during his service career he remained quiet and now he cannot make a belated attempt to disturb the seniority.

4. The respondents have admitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the effect of promotion was given to Sher Singh-respondent No. 3 as Supervisor Grade-II from 23.06.1983 and as Supervisor Grade-I with effect from 24.09.1984 in order to restore his seniority. The respondent No. 1 has admitt