Delay in pursuing claims for promotional benefits can bar relief if not within reasonable time limits.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2015 in File No.136/1154/201 4/Seventeen/Medi-1, Bhopal by which the claim of petitioner for grant of promotional benefits of higher post from the date of taking current charge has been rejected.

2. It is the case of petitioner that initially he was appointed as Block Extension Officer and vide order dated 01.10.1984 he was promoted to the post of Deputy District Media Extension and Information Officer. In compliance of said order, petitioner took charge of the post w.e.f. from 12.11.1984. (In this order, it was mentioned that petitioner was given the current charge of post of Deputy District Media Extension and Information Officer and therefore, he shall not be paid pay scale of his promoted post). The petitioner worked on the said post continuously and performed his duties till he was regularly promoted on the said post vide Signature Not Verified order dated 25.03.1989. It is the case of petitioner that he was paid actual financial benefit of the promoted post with effect from 06.04.1989 whereas he was entitled for actual benefit of promoted post which was held by him in the current charge with effect from 12.11.1984. Similarly placed employee namely Shri H.C. Vyas and Shri Balkrishna Bhalke who were also initially given the current charge and were subsequently regularly promoted had approached the State Administrative Tribunal and their original applications were allowed and respondents were directed to pay the salary. The order of Tribunal was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.231/2014 which also affirmed the said order. Accordingly, petitioner also submitted a representation on 06.12.2003 for grant of benefits of promoted post which was held in current charge with effect from 12.09.1984 but the benefits were not granted. Petitioner continuously made the representation but nothing was done. Ultimately petitioner retired from the service. Thereafter, he filed a Writ Petition No.5328/2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2010 directing the petitioner to submit representation before the Authorities. The representation was submitted on 09.11.2006 and ultimately, by impugned order, representation has been rejected. It is submitted that petitioner is entitled for the similar treatment which was given to the similarly situated persons namely Shri H.C. Vyas and Shri Balkrishna Bhalke.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Fundamental Rule 49 deals with a situation like a present one which reads as under:-

“49. The State Government may appoint a Government servant already holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity to officiate, as a temporary measure in one or more of other independent posts at one time under that Government. In such cases, no additional pay shall be admissible irrespective of the period of dual charges:

Provided that if in any particular case where a Government Signature Not Verified servant is formerly appointed to hold charge of a higher post in addition to his original post a competent authority may grant to the Government servants double duty allowance at the prescribed rates up to a period of one year.”

6. Furthermore, copy of order dated 08.10.1984 has been placed on record which merely mentions that current charge of the post of Deputy District Media Extension and Information Officer is being given to the petitioner and other persons. The word 'Promotion' is not mentioned in the said order. In fact, regular DPC was conducted on 29.12.1988 and thereafter by order dated 25.03.1989 order of promotion was issued. Thus, the claim of petitioner that he was promoted to the post of Deputy District Media Extension and Information Officer by order dated 01.10.1984 is per se in