The judgment established the principle that delay in seeking remedies and laches can disentitle individuals from claiming relief, emphasizing the implicit limitations of time within which remedies can be enforced.

ORDER :

1. The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners to appoint them in the post of Junior Assistant or B.T. Assistant from their initial date of temporary appointment on par with other similarly placed persons given as per G.O.Ms.No.246, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.08.2003 on notional basis was rejected.

2. The petitioners were initially appointed in the Census Department on temporary basis. Since it was a project related engagement by the Government on temporary basis, the petitioners were ousted from service.

3. Pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Government absorbed these temporary employees in a phased manner and the retrenched employees were reconsidered for fresh appointment in the available vacancies in the cadre of Record Clerk in various Departments without reference to their qualifications.

4. The absorption of the petitioners pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was made. However, they were not recruited through the Rules in force. The initial engagement of the petitioners were temporary and for conducting Census and subsequently after the completion of the project, they were ousted from service. Thus the very appointment of the writ petitioners in the sanctioned post of Record Clerk itself was a concession extended and the writ petitioners were appointed on regular basis in the year 2006 and thereafter, they are continuing as regular employees in the various Departments.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the similarly placed persons conferred with the benefit of retrospective appointment in the post of Junior Assistant from the date of their initial appointment in the Census Department.

6. The Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.246, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.08.2003. In this regard, the petitioners submitted their representation and the said representation of the writ petitioners was not considered and thereafter, the petitioners filed WP No.32239 of 2018. In that writ petition, this Court directed the Authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners and the said representation was not considered in the right perspective and the impugned order of rejection was issued.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the petitioners cannot be discriminated, since similar benefit was extended to other similarly placed persons. Thus the respondents have violated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the cases of these writ petitioners are to be considered on par with the other similarly placed incumbents.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by stating that the petitioners were initially engaged as temporary employees in the Census Department, which is a project related work. On completion of the project work, they were ousted from service and they went up to the Supreme Court and based on sympathetic grounds, the Authorities have considered their cases for absorption. Accordingly, all the petitioners were absorbed in the sanctioned post in the year 2006 and therefore, they are regularly serving in the Census Department as regular employees. While-so, after lapse of several years, these petitioners have approached the Department for retrospective promotion from the date of their initial appointments in the Census Department. The earlier cases relied on by the petitioners were also considered by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.246, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.08.2003 and the order passed in WP No.24771 of 2006 dated 20.08.2009 were considered by the Government. Accordingly, the claim of the writ petitioners was rejected.

9. In the context of the above submission, it is relevant to extract paragraphs 17 and 20 of the counter-affidavit filed by the second respond