Order on Board

10.12.2024

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent authorities to grant benefit of promotion to the petitioner with effect from the year 2006 with all consequential benefits on completion of 7 years of service from the date of initial appointment.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondent authorities to pay the Arrears/Difference of pay of the promotional post with effect from year 2006.

10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is holding the post of Teacher (E-Cadre L.B.) has claimed promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II from 2006. He would further submit that earlier a writ petition was filed and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner and the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 28.8.2018 has been rejected by the respondent authorities on 11.1.2021. He would also submit that the petitioner was qualified to be promoted to the post of Teacher Grade-II in the year 2006 itself but no steps were taken by the respondent authorities for the reasons best known to them.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has claimed promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II since 2006 whereas, the services of the petitioner got merged with the Education Department pursuant to a policy decision of the State Government taken in the year 2018. He would further submit that earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim and the same was turned down on 11.1.2021 whereas, the present petition was filed on 17.1.2024, after a lapse of three years and thus, the petition suffers from delay and laches.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

5. In the matter of Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 883, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 21 as under:-

“21. Profitably, we may reproduce relevant passages from certain decisions of this Court:

(A) Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648:

“To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts w