Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Mohammad Abdullah Chowdhary – Appellant
Versus
J&K Small Scale Industries Dev. Corporation and others - Respondent
WP(C) No.1485 of 2021
Decided on : 02-08-2024
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Rekha Wangnoo, GA.
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for promotion and retirement benefits - Petitioner sought to quash the order denying him promotion and benefits, claiming discrimination and supersession by a junior - Court found the petitioner's claims to be stale due to delay and laches, as he had acquiesced in the actions of the respondents over the years - The respondents' decision to grant notional promotion was deemed sufficient and the petitioner was estopped from claiming further benefits. (Paras 11, 18, 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after a long service, claimed wrongful supersession and sought promotion to higher posts, alleging discrimination compared to similarly situated colleagues. He retired in 2010 and continued to make representations regarding his promotion and benefits. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner had abandoned his claims by not pursuing them timely and had acquiesced in the respondents' actions. The notional promotion granted was sufficient, and the claim for further benefits was rejected. (Paras 28, 30)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was wrongfully superseded and whether he could claim promotion and benefits after a significant delay. (Paras 12, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a stale claim for promotion cannot be revived after a long delay, and mere representations do not constitute a fresh cause of action. Acquiescence and delay bar the petitioner from claiming further benefits. (Paras 28, 30)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1) The reliefs prayed by the petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition are reproduced as under:
“It is accordingly prayed that by an appropriate writ direction or order including a writ in the nature of certiorari Order No: 48-Admn of 2021 dated 14.07.2021 be quashed and by writ of mandamus respondents be directed to correct their records and treat the petitioner to have retired from the service of the respondent Corporation as Managing Director on the analogy of R. L. Tikoo or at least as Senior General Manager on 30.06.2010. The respondents, as a part of consequential relief be directed to promote the petitioner retrospectively by placing in appropriate pay scales as per due date of promotion and pay arrears of pay to the petitioner and also provide post retiral benefits to the petitioner based on the Pay scale of Managing Director 37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8700/- or at least in the pay scale of 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7400/- (Senior General Manager) which the petitioner was deemed to be holding as on 30.06.2010.
It is further prayed that the previous service rendered by the petitioner in Food Corporation of India be directed to be included for calculating post retiral benefits on the analogy of similarly placed namely, V. K. Gupta, Rajesh Thakur and Dewan Chand, who were working in different departments but subsequently appointed in SICOP, their previous rendered service was included for calculation of retiral benefits whereas same has not been done in the case of petitioner.
It is further prayed that the respondent corporation be directed to refix the pay correctly/properly of the petitioner on the analogy of V. K. Gupta, Rajesh Thakur and Dewan Chand etc. Their pay was fixed correctly and also protected and difference of arrears was released and paid to them.
Though wrongly, pay of the petitioner was also protected but not fixed correctly arbitrarily difference of arrears were denied to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was treated differently with the similarly situated officers with open discrimination.
It is further prayed that higher pay scale of the post against which the petitioner worked with effect from 16.10.1984 to 26.01.1988 may kindly be directed to be granted in the admissible pay scale of the higher post as already upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court and Administrative Tribunals respectively by catena of judgments.
It is further prayed that the respondent corporation may be directed to release the Annual Increment to the retiree of 30 th June which is usually released on first of July uniformly.
As the petitioner retired on 30th of June after rendering service and completing one full year from 1st July, 2009 to 30 thJune, 2010. Thus the earned increment is due and payable as also are granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Central Administrative Tribunals. On the analogy of these judgments the Annual Increment may kindly be granted to the petitioner retiree of 30th June, 2010.
It is further prayed that the respondent corporation be directed to release the full arrears of 6th Pay Commission without making any deductions of any allowances with are otherwise payable.”
2) As per case of the petitioner he was initially appointed in Food Corporation of India on 17.09.1976 as Assistant Grade-III (Depot) whereafter he came to be appointed in J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the SICOP”) as Senior Assistant on 08.07.1980. The petitioner was promoted as Storekeeper on 20.04.1981 and in October 1984, he was posted as Incharge Depot Katra which is a higher post than that of Storekeeper. On 27.01.1998, the petitioner was promoted as District Manager.
3) According to the petitioner he was superseded on 01.01.1986 and on 26.09.1995 when one Shri Ratan Lal Tickoo stole a march over him even though Shri Tickoo was appointed as Assistant Typist in the SICOP on 24.01.1983 after the appointment of
A stale claim for promotion and benefits cannot be revived after significant delay; acquiescence and laches bar relief.
Delay in challenging promotions can bar relief; timely action is crucial in promotion matters.
Point of Law : Promotions made prior to enforcement of such Rules were not to be affected by 1999 Rules as such Rules were to operate prospectively and not retrospectively.
Claims for promotional increments must be raised within a reasonable time, particularly before retirement; delay can bar relief.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
The claim for restoration of seniority is barred by delay and laches, as the promotions of junior candidates were not timely challenged, affirming the necessity of prompt legal action in service matt....
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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
