IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5315 of 2001 MOHAN PRASAD Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. ----------- 13- 9.5.2008 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh for respondent nos.1 to 6, and Mr. Rajeev Roy for respondent nos.7 and 8. Respondent nos.9 to 11 have not entered appearance in spite of valid service of notice. 2. This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Controller in Transmission Sub-division, Sone Nagar (Baroon) district Aurangabad by modifying the final gradation list prepared and published by the respondents vide memo no.1146 dated 3.7.1990 with all benefits of the promoted post with effect from the date the other juniors to the petitioner have been promoted as Assistant Controller from the post of Assistant Operator. And/or for grant of any other reliefs to the petitioner for which he may be found entitled in the eye of law. 3. The two sets of respondents have placed on record their separate sets of counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. 2 4. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Respondent nos.7 to 11 were appointed as I.T.I. Apprentice in the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board for three months, vide order dated 19.8.1974 (Annexure-10). The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Operator on a provisional basis by order dated 5.12.1974 (Annexure-2). It was stipulated therein that the petitioner will compete with other eligible candidates at the time of finalisation. In due course, the services of the petitioner were regularised along with others by order dated 23.8.1976 (Annexure-3). The same was, however, modified by order dated 11.1.1983 (Annexure-5), and the date of regularisation of the petitioner’s service was shifted to 6.11.1974. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, stated that this was an error for 6.12.1974. The services of respondent nos.7 to 11 were regularised by order dated 5.5.1982 (Annexure- 12). The services of respondent no.7 & 8 were regularised with effect from 1.6.1975, that of respondent no.9 with effect from 1.6.1976, and those of respondent nos.10 and 11 with effect 3 from 1.6.1975. In the meantime, petitioner/ respondent nos.7 and 8 were given the selection grade with effect from 1.7.1977. There is no material on record to suggest that respondent nos.9 to 11 were given the selection grade. The Board issued a tentative gradation list of the category of employees of the petitioner and private respondents inviting objections vide order dated 5.5.1982 (Annexure-12). It appears that the Board having found serious errors in the provisional tentative gradation list, cancelled the same and circulated another tentative gradation list inviting objections, vide order dated 6.5.1985 (Annexure-13). 4.1) The services of the petitioner and respondent nos.7 to 11 were regularised along with a large number of other employees. It appears that this had given rise to grievances leading to constitution of a Committee comprising of four senior functionaries of the Board. The Committee examined the matter and submitted its report dated 10.10.1987 (Annexure-B), which in substance recommended that their services should be regularised with effect from the dates they complete one year of commencement of 4 their engagement on muster-roll basis or provisional basis and, therefore, the inter-se seniority shall be determined accordingly from the date of their regular appointments. 5. After consideration of the objections submitted by the employees as well as the Committee’s report, the Board published the final gradation list on 3.7.1990 (Annexure- 1). Respondent nos.7 to 11 have been assigned 19.8.1975 as the dates of their regularisation. Respondent no.7 figures at serial no.5, respondent no.8 at serial no.6, respondent no.9 at serial no.10, respondent no.10 at serial no.12, and respondent no.11 at serial no.13 of the gradation list. The petitioner has been shown to have been regularised with effect from 6.12.1975, and is shown at serial no.34. This was in view of the seniority position reflected in the final gradation list. The respondent authorities promoted a number of employees including respondent nos.7 to 11 from the existing post of Assistant Operator to the next higher post of Controller, vide order dated 22.9.1990 (Annexure-8). Aggrieved by the situation, the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.7.1990 (Annexure-14), 5 seeking correction of the gradation list. This was followed by another representation dated 27.4.1994 (Annexure-9), seeking to challenge the impugned order of promotion. According to the petitioner, the representations remained unattended leading to the present writ petition instituted in this Court on 23.4.2001. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have advanced elaborate submissions in support of their respective cases. I do not feel the necessity of recapitulating them, let alone the question of discussing them, in view of the nature of the order that I am going to pass. It is manifest on the face of it that the final gradation list was published on 3.7.1990, after consideration of the objections received from the employees as well as other materials before him. It is obvious that the gradation list had attained finality and, therefore, there was perhaps no scope for the aforesaid representation dated 15.7.1990 (Annexure-14). The petitioner’s grievance could have been ventilated before a court of competent jurisdiction. In so far as the second representation dated 27.4.1994 (Annexure-9) is concerned, whereby the petitioner raised the 6 grievance as to the denial of promotion to him, the same had been submitted belatedly on 27.4.1994 (Annexure-9). If the petitioner had really a grievance against the denial of promotion to him, he should have submitted his representation soon after the impugned order of promotion was passed on 22.9.1990. 7. I must consider the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s two representations suffered inaction at the hands of the respondent authorities and explains the delay. The contention is stated only to be rejected. This issue from one angle has been discussed hereinabove. Furthermore, law is well settled that if the representation of an aggrieved employee remains unattended and unanswered, the aggrieved person must approach the Court before parallel rights are created and allowed to be entrenched by lapse of time. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner’s representation dated 27.4.1994 (Annexure-9), challenging the promotion of respondent nos.7 to 11, was itself hit by delay, laches, negligence, let alone the present writ petition. I have not the slightest manner of doubt that this writ petition suffers 7 from unexplained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. Settled affairs cannot be allowed to unsettle in such a manner. It is undoubtedly a gross abuse of the process of the Court, and is a frivolous writ petition. 8. The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand). The respondent Board shall realise the same from the petitioner’s salary. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/