The principle of delay and laches in seeking legal remedies, and the impact of acquiescence to the respondent's actions on the petitioner's entitlement to relief.

JUDGMENT :

(Jagmohan Bansal, J.) :

1. The petitioner through instant is seeking setting aside of memo dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure P-5) whereby he was required to appear in written test as per promotion policy dated 15.09.2003 for promotion MMGS-III w.e.f. 01.11.1993.

2. The petitioner on 03.12.1984 joined respondent-bank as Probationary Officer. He was granted grade of Middle Management Grade Scale-II (for short ‘MGS-II’) w.e.f. 01.08.1990. As per policy in vogue, the petitioner was entitled to grade of MMGS-III w.e.f. 01.11.1993. The petitioner in 1991 was posted at Sonitpur (Assam). An FIR under Section 326 and 376 of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner and he was arrested. The respondent suspended the petitioner w.e.f. 23.08.1991. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, the respondent re-instated the petitioner w.e.f. 30.08.1994. The petitioner vide order dated 20.04.1995 was allowed benefit of continuance of service as well as other benefits as admissible to him from the date of suspension to the date of his reinstatement. The criminal proceedings came to be set aside vide order dated 09.05.2001 passed by Guwahati High Court. The respondent-bank granted the petitioner grade of MMGS-III w.e.f. 01.11.2002. The petitioner represented the respondent with a request to grant him aforesaid grade w.e.f. 01.11.1993. The respondent rejected representation of the petitioner who thereafter preferred CWP No.17051 of 2002 before this Court. Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2004 disposed of said petition with following directions :

i) That as the respondent had been suspended in a criminal case which was purely a personal matter, the period of suspension could in no way come in his way in making him ineligible for promotion from MMGS II to MMGS III;

ii) that on re-instatement, he was entitled to have his entire case re-considered on merits the moreso as he had received Commendation Certificate for his excellent work after his re-instatement;

iii) that no employee could be prejudiced on account of the fact that he had been under suspension but ultimately re-instated and criminal proceedings against him had subsequently been quashed. The ultimate direction of the learned Single Judge was as follows:-

Consequently, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 4.5.2001 and 6.3.2002 (Annexures P-12 and P-14). It is ordered that the respondent authorities shall consider the petitioner for promotion within three months from the date of this order as MMGS III with effect from the date when the petitioner became due and eligible for promotion as such or from the date his juniors/batchmates were promoted. It is further ordered that the petitioner shall be given all consequential benefits of his consequent promotions. No costs."

3. The respondent-bank preferred intra court appeal by way of LPA No.437 of 2004 before this Court. During the pendency of LPA, the respondent-bank re-considered case of the petitioner. The respondent formed an opinion that case of the petitioner should be considered a special case. The respondent considered ACR(s) of the petitioner for 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The respondent found annual reports of the petitioner for the years ending 31.03.1992, 31.03.1993, 31.03.1994 with ‘zero mark’. Nevertheless, the respondent with intent to grant grade of MMGS-III, asked the petitioner to qualify written test, in terms of promotion policy of 2003 which the petitioner denied on the ground that he has been promoted w.e.f. 01.11.2002 and promotion policy of 2003 cannot be made applicable to him. It is apt to notice that there was no written test prior to 2003. The petitioner did not agree to qualify written test and respondent-bank vide order dated 18.07.2005 decided not to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.1993. The copy of order dated 18.07.2005 was placed before Division Bench which was adjudicating LPA No.437 of 2004. The Division Bench vide order dated 04.01.2006 dismiss