The court emphasized that the Board proceedings in BP.Ms.No.813 dated 21.04.1972 did not apply to the petitioners and highlighted the principle that unexplained delays and inordinate laches are relevant in writ actions.

ORDER :

The writ of Mandamus has been instituted by the petitioners to direct the respondents to settle petitioner’s lawful dues for which they are entitled as per the orders passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No.967 of 2012, pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 26.07.2012.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner articulated the case of the petitioners by stating that all the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were initially appointed as Junior Assistants. After several years of service in the cadre of Junior Assistants, the petitioners were transferred and posted as Junior Auditors in the Audit Branch for the Boards Services. In respect of transferred Junior Assistants as Junior Auditors, the Board proceedings Ms.No. 813 dated 21.04.1972 stipulates certain benefits. As per the Boards proceedings, “The seniority of Assistants transferred from System / Office Circle offices to the Accounts wing shall be reckoned with reference to their total services as Assistants in the Accounts Wing plus half of their past services as Assistants in the system / circle offices.”

3. Relying on the Board proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that in the present cases, all the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Assistants and transferred as Junior Auditors in the Audit wing of the Board and therefore, half of the services rendered by all these petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistants is to be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of seniority and for grant of consequential monetary benefits and other benefits.

4. In the context of the above benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court that the writ petition filed in the year 1991 to 1993 were decided by the High Court in the year 1999 against the employees, which were taken by way an Appeal before the Division Bench in writ appeal in W.A.No.1178 to 1180 of 1999. The Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 28.01.2002 as follows.

“We make it clear that the relief, which can be granted, is only monetary one, not affecting the seniority, and such the question of settling the seniority will not arise at all. The relief which is granted in these writ appeals is computation of the cash benefits basing upon the notional seniority to be given reckoning the dates of the first entry of the appellants in the service. For reckoning and payment of differential amount, time of six months is granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the writ appeals are thus allowed, as indicated above. No costs.”

5. Since the order of the Division Bench not implemented, the appellants therein filed Contempt Petition No.967 and 1108 of 2012 and pursuant to the Contempt Petition, the respondents implemented the order and extended the benefits in respect of two petitioners in the Contempt Petitions.

6. Another person namely R.Natarajan filed W.P.No.7161 of 2005 and the said writ petition was also disposed of on 09.11.2009 granting the benefit. In view of the fact that the said petitioners were conferred with the benefit of notional seniority and the monetary benefits, the similar benefits are to be extended to all these petitioners by fixing notional seniority and granting consequential monetary benefits.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the delay cannot be a ground to reject all these writ petitions. Once the issue has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in respect of 5 appellants therein and similar benefits ought to have been extended to all the similarly placed persons and therefore, the respondents Board failed to act as a moral employer and therefore, the present writ petitions are to be considered.

8. Regarding the latches, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were making several representations, even after their retirement and none of those representations were looked into by the competent authoritie