1

D. B. SEPCIAL APPEAL (W) NO.218/2007

(SATYA PRAKASH V. THE STATE OF RAJ. & OTHERS)

DATE OF ORDER: :::: 26-04-2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN

Mr. R.S.Saluja, for appellant.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are

satisfied that the learned Single Judge was right in not

entertaining the writ petition filed by him on the ground of

inordinate delay and latches. The petitioner was given

appointment by way of promotion on the post of Stenographer

by order dated 6.7.2000 with retrospectives effect from

16.7.1982 and that has been served on him before the

disposition of the contempt petition. The contempt petition has

been disposed of on 4.12.2000, with the direction that the

compliance of the directions of the Court has already been made

and nothing survives in it. The order dated 6^th July, 2000 was

challenged by filing the writ petition No.6271/2003, more than

three years after the impugned order. The learned Single Judge

has not entertained the writ petition on the ground of delay and

latches and has referred to the quantum of delay with reference

to the date with effect from which the promotion was made in

2

2000 with retrospective effect. Therefore, it is true the delay was

not of 19 years, but the delay was of more than 3 years and

ordinarily, the remedy to get the relief by way of civil suit would

have been barred by time.

Apart from that, no satisfactory explanation has been given

for invoking jurisdiction of this Court for challenging the assigned

date of promotion with retrospective effect more than three

years after the date of impugned order.

The only contention raised in this connection before us is

that his juniors have been promoted before filing petition. But

that was always within the knowledge of the petitioner and,

therefore, that cannot be the explanation.

The further contention of the petitioner is that neither

emoluments nor selection scale on completion of the period of 9,

18 and 27 years was granted. This is indirectly seeking the

same relief, which he cannot get on the ground of latches.

It may be mentioned that the petitioner had filed the writ

petition in the year, 2003, seeking a remedy, cause of action

for which arose in the year, 1972 when his juniors Deena Natha

and Mahesh Singh were appointed as Stenograhper Gr. II w.e.f.

13^th January, 1972 and 15^th January, 1972 respectively. The

appointment by way of direct recruitment is an altogether from

different stream than the promotion. If they were appointed in

the year, 1972 as direct recruits and not by promotion, the

3

petitioner could not make any grievance, seniority is relevant

only in the matter of promotion to the said post and not to

appointment against vacancies if they were to be filled by direct

recruitment. If this appointment was by way of promotion from

lower post, then too the inter-seniority position was known to

the petitioner when the promotion was made in the year, 1972.

At any rate, the date on which he was given promotion w.e.f.

16.7.1982, he had a cause of action whom he knew to be his

juniors, but who had been promoted earlier than him. Hence,

delay of more than three years in challenging the impugned

order assigning his date of promotion remain unexplained.

Apart from that, the petitioner made representations in 1987

with regard to the grievance pertaining to the promotion made in

years 1975 to 1979 yet he did not take any action after order

dated 16.12.2000 was made. Moreover, at belated stage raising

of grievance may not only amount to unsettling an otherwise

settled position, but may also amount to giving premium to a

person who has been himself negligent about persuing his

remedy to protect his rights.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(BHANWAROO KHAN), J.