Delay in challenging administrative decisions precludes relief under Writ jurisdiction.

Judgment Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 16.12.2024 passed in WP(c) No.23698 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition.

FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner had filed the Writ Petition claiming the following reliefs: i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary;

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refix the pay scale of the petitioner, by considering the initial 5 years of service in the post of Junior Scientist;

iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be refixed in the post of Scientist considering the initial 5 years of the petitioner’s service;

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refix the post of the applicant in the post of Scientist considering the initial 5 years of the petitioner’s service;

v) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get her pay scale fixed by refixing her appointment as sought for in prayers No.(iii) and (iv) above;

vi) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner by refixing her post as sought for in prayers (iii) and (iv);

vii) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case;

viii) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

2.1. The appellant was appointed in the Rubber Board, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India as Junior Scientist on 10.05.2000. The appellant went on long leave without pay w.e.f. 25.05.2005. After three years, she came back to the organization and joined the same post. Thereafter she was promoted to the next higher post from the Junior Scientist on completion of five years of service on 10.05.2005. The monetary benefits were also extended to her. Again, the appellant was promoted to the next grade in the year 2013. The appellant wanted the respondents should re-fix the pay scale by considering the initial 5 years of service in the post of Junior Scientist. The appellant made a representation to the competent authority to the effect that she would be eligible for counting of the period of extraordinary leave as regular service since the freshly appointed candidates who are technically juniors to the appellant completed 5 years and were promoted as seniors to the appellant. The said representation was decided vide Ext.P7 rejecting the same on the ground that the period of extraordinary leave cannot be treated as qualifying service for CIS. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein had filed the present Writ Appeal before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rejection of the representation is clearly arbitrary and illegal. In fact, the appellant had to be promoted from the then existing entry cadre, that is Scientist-A with the pay scale of Rs.6500- Rs.10500 to the higher post. Instead, the appellant was reposted in an abolished post of Junior Scientist and upon receiving her representation to upgrade the post, the appellant was again assessed and given the same entry cadre post of Scientist-A, even after the appellant successfully completed 5 years in the entry cadre of Junior Scientist. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant was liable to get the benefit of counting of service as per law. 3.1 The learned Single Judge, even without entering into merits of the case, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that she was lastly promoted in the year 2013 and she continued to work for at