* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14621/2004 NET RAM ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha, Adv. versus DELHI JAL BOARD & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. R K Tewari, Adv. for DJB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 01.05.2008 1. The petitioner Mr. Net Ram was an employee of DJB. He was appointed as Assistant Pump Driver on 14.6.1973 and was promoted as Pump Driver in 1982. In normal course, the petitioner would have been considered and promoted as a Shift Incharge on 6.6.1990. However, at that time the petitioner was under suspension as criminal proceedings under section 307/120B IPC were pending against him. The petitioner was acquitted in the said proceedings on 22.8.1990. In fact, even before the said date, the petitioner was already reinstated in the service by an order dated 25.6.1990. 2. The petitioner as per law was required to be considered for promotion as a Shift Incharge by the DPC, which was held before 6th June, 1990 but the recommendations of the DPC were required to be kept in a sealed cover. There was lapse and mistake on the part of the respondents, as a result the DPC did not consider the petitioner’s case and the sealed cover procedure was not followed. 3. Even after the petitioner was reinstated in service on 25.6.1990 and acquitted with the criminal case on 22.8.1990, remedial steps were not taken by the respondents for consideration of the case by a DPC. 4. It may be relevant to note here that the respondents by a speaking order dated 03.5.1991 directed that the petitioner would be paid full pay and allowance for the period of suspension. At this time also in 1991, remedial steps to correct the lapse and mistake were not taken. 5. The petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis as a Shift Incharge on 29.6.1993 against a vacant post and thereafter on 12.3.1998, the respondents partly rectified their mistake and passed an order stating that consequent upon recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner stands notionally promoted as a Shift Incharge w.e.f. 6.6.1990 i.e. from the date when the juniors were promoted. However, the question of additional salary which the petitioner was entitled to w.e.f. 6.6.1990 till 26.7.1993 remained unaddressed and unanswered. In the meanwhile the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.1998. The petitioner kept on making representations hoping for a favourable response. The representations were also examined by the respondents and by the letter dated 17.5.1999, OSD to the Chief Minister informed the petitioner that the matter was referred to DJB, who had informed that the petitioner was promoted on notional basis therefore payment of arrears cannot be granted. The letter, however, further stated that the final advice in this regard was being obtained from the Department of Service and Personal Training of the Delhi Government and thereafter the petitioner would be informed and intimated. No intimation was received by the petitioner who thereupon approached Delhi Legal Services Authority. The petitioner being a retired person did not have enough financial sources to file a writ petition. Delhi Legal Services Authority took up the matter with the respondents but when even after repeated meetings the matter could not be settled the present writ petition was filed in the year 2004. 6. Normally a writ petition of this nature is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. However, in the present case I find that the petitioner belongs to lower strata of society and did not have enough financial resources to approach the court and engage a lawyer. He was making repeated representations and his hopes were raised when the letter dated 17.5.1999 was written by the office of the Chief Minster, Delhi stating that the Department of Service and Personal Training of the Delhi Government had been requested to take up the matter and provide final advice. Perhaps the petitioner felt that it takes time for the government machinery to function and for appropriate orders and relief to be granted. Thereafter the petitioner sought refuge with the Delhi Legal Services Authority and it took about 2 years before the said authority filed the present writ petition. I may also note here that notional promotion to the petitioner was granted only vide order dated 12.3.1998 though petitioner had rejoined in service on 25.6.1990. In this case I am therefore of the opinion that laches and delay should not come in the way of the petitioner if he is entitled to any relief on merits. 7. With regard to payment of back wages for the period from 6.6.1990 till 26.7.1993 is concerned there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly reinstated in service on 26.6.1990. The DPC on 6.6.1990 should have followed sealed cover procedure. Thereafter petitioner was acquitted on 22.8.1990. This fact was informed to the respondents who had themselves passed an order granting full pay and allowance to the petitioner on 3.5.1991. The case of the petitioner should have been immediately considered for promotion. It is also an admitted case that when the matter was finally put up before DPC, the petitioner was found to be fit for promotion w.e.f. 6.6.1990 but this order was passed only on 12.3.1998. The lapse and mistakes are entirely on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner will be accordingly entitled to difference in salary and allowance payable to him as a Shift Incharge for the period between 3.5.1991 till 26.7.1993. However, I am not inclined to grant interest on the aforesaid amount because of the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court. Necessary calculation and payment will be made by the respondents to the petitioner within 8 weeks. In case, the payment is not made within 8 weeks the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the judgment till payment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 01, 2008 vld