Point of Law: Delay and latches in challenging the seniority is always fatal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Subhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Vijay Kumar Srivastava along with Sri. Gopal Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These special appeals have been filed by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ challenging a common judgment rendered by the writ court on 14.10.2019 in a bunch of writ petitions, the leading Writ Petition being No. 47 (S/B) (Now Service Single) of 2014 (Ravi Shankar Mishra vs. State of U.P.).

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents herein are erstwhile employees of the appellant-corporation. A scheme of voluntary retirement was floated on 13.10.2009 (Page No. 76 of the Special Appeal) in pursuance to which, they applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted. Accordingly, they retired voluntarily. It is informed that they had an option to continue with the company which was purchasing the sugar mills of the appellant-Corporation but the respondents did not choose to do so, instead, they applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted. The nineteen respondents in these nineteen appeals, retired on 30.08.2010, 18.09.2010, 15.10.2010, 18.09.2010, 18.09.2010, 05.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 15.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 30.08.2010, 07.10.2010, 30.08.2010, 30.08.2010, 15.10.2010 respectively. They were working on different posts in the mills being run by the appellant-Corporation. On 25.08.2010, dearness allowance of the State Government employees was revised in pursuance to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission from 115% to 129% w.e.f. 01.01.2010. Thereafter on 11.09.2009, a Government Order was issued in exercise of powers of the State Government under the U.P. Control of Public Corporations Act, 1975 which was addressed to all public corporations/ undertakings, which included the appellant-Corporation herein, wherein, it was mentioned that the State Government had accepted, in principle, enhancement of dearness allowance for employees of such corporations/undertakings, however subject to certain conditions mentioned therein one of which was the paying capacity of the corporation which was to be assessed by an ‘Empowered Committee’ as mentioned therein. In pursuance to the aforesaid Government Order, the meeting of such Empowered Committee took place on 16.09.2010. The minutes of the meeting are annexed at page no. 240 of the appeal. The Empowered Committee was informed that enhancement of dearness allowance from 115% to 129% w.e.f. 01.01.2010 for employees of the appellant- Corporation would entail an additional burden of Rs. 4.87 lac per month or Rs. 58.44 lac per year upon the appellant-Corporation. The Empowered Committee on being informed that the Corporation had the means to meet the aforesaid expenditure, it approved such enhancement for its employees. We asked learned counsel for the appellant vide our order dated 08.09.2021 as to whether the proposal which was placed before the Empowered Committee in its meeting dated 16.09.2010 included the financial burden which would have to be borne by the corporation in respect to the seven of the retired employees who are respondents herein, meaning thereby, the respondents who had retired prior to 16.09.2010/ 24.09.2010. He informed that as the proposal which was placed before the Empowered Committee on 16.09.2010 was prepared on 28.08.2010 and these seven respondents were in service at that time, they having retired subsequently, therefore, the proposal included the amount payable to them. He asserted that this was not on account of the fact that they were eligible for enhanced dearness allowance even after acceptance of voluntary retirement but for the reason aforesaid.

4. After the decision of the Empowered Committee dated 16.09.2010 which was communicated to the Corporation on 23.09.2010, the Managing Director of the Corporation i.e. appe