^^—.•-^--^- l.':^ BEPORE THE HONOmABLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR c^pC^^^i^ O.A. No« , * . . . .1999 PETITICNER A- -^^ ^' A.Q. Siddlqui aged 59 years S/o Shrl Abdul Qafoor Retired Sub-Englneer Burg Divlsion-I Burg (M.P.). Versus '*' RESPDNDENT s t2-) state Oovernment of Madhya ftradesh P.W.D. Through the Secretary Vallabh Bharwan, BHOPAL (M,P.)* (2) The Engineer-J.a-Chief M.P.P.W.D.Bhopal, (3) The Qnief Engineer East 2one (P.W.D,) Raipur< (4) The Superintend&ng Engineer, P.W.D* Durg Circle, Eurg« (5) %e Executive Engineer^ P.W.D. Division-I, Dur-g» Applicatlon T.ys 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 -78 ^° ^wT;:ZTPTT^T, y^twi<»,RrtW^ ^|g*1^8 ^STT^ ...........................y......... 3TT^$T q^P (4c|[^6|<£{) 3?1^fT^rR^ ^STSH^^T^TW B;^ffWr^feT31^^T cpi<<[o<Tlri ^i+ioT^f (^^9 ^Ri^ci<< ^S 3tRl+l 3TT^5T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mdhan Shrivastava. J. 11-02-2010 Shri Somkant Verma, coultiselforthepetitbner. Smt. Madhunisha Singh, Ipanel Lawyer for the State/respondents. With the consent of leanfied counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. This petition has been f|ted by the petitioner after hfe retirement raising claim for grant of promo1|ion as Sub Engmeer with efFect from year 1977 when persons junior to him|, were promoted. Ipetitioner submits that the petttioner was initially appointed as Assistant Qraftsman in the year 1961. Inthe seniority Leamed counsel for the list of year 1976-77, the petitio| persons junior to the petittoner v^ Later on, vide order dated 07-0| |ier was placed at Serial No.12. In 1977, <sre promoted on tiie post ofSub Engin^r. |1-1988. he was granted promotion on the post of Sub Engineer w.e.f. 10-012-1987 recording that persons junior to the petitbner were promoted. Howe|ver, applying the principle of "No work No Pay", arrears were not pafcl to retired from ser/ice, his entire he petitioner. It is stated that as persons junior to the petitioner were proboted, petitioner was entitted to be given promotton as Sub Engineer \ji/.e.f. 02-02-1977 wtth all consequential benefits and seniority. It is th^refore prayed that as the petitioner was ^onsequential benefits may be revised in view of the fact that he was entitled to be promoted with effect from 02-02- 1977. -7Q ;3:CTT;^TRnc??, va11<-i<i<o, Rlril^^ „»^.:(.<.?i'w..^9.lt>.C.. ^lli1WI 3H^?T q^P ('jclfjcl.e;) @ ^,20 3?]^$TcinR^Jcb ^FT3TT^5T^^Jch €pi<i[cl><Tlvi+<i+ioV^"(^^l <<Ri^i<< ^»3iKl*i 3H^5T Leamed counsel for the r^spondents submfts that the instant petition 1 has been filed after inordinate ^elay. It is not disput^j that the petitioner was superceded on account of p|romotjon of his juniors in the year 1977 Ixit the petittoner did not raise any ^ available to him under law b^| rievance nor took recourse to any remedy filing any petition before any Court of competent jurisdiction. It is alsjo argued that even after promotbn was granted to the petitioner, though belatedly, vfcle order dated 10-02-1987, the petitioner acquiesced in it ^nd did not chaltenge the same. After the retirement ofthe petitioner i.e. aflter almost 22 years, he daimed for grant of promotton with effect from yea^ 1977. In her submisston, the petitbn is therefore liabfe to be dismissed 4)n this count atona Facts floating on the ^urface are that the i^titioner suffered supercession wayback in the y^ar 1977. The j^titloner did not chadenge the supercesston. After almost 1 petitioner was granted proform< O years, vide order dated 10-02-1987. the promotion as Sub Engineer Even at this stage, the petitioner did not afrproach any Court of law. The petitioner remained sitent and indolent for|more than 10 years and till his retirement, he did not fite any petition befon only for the first time in the ^ar 1999, that instant petitbn has b^n preferred. In the case of Wtarai^ snather vs. Jabar Sin^j and as under 43. The termination order petitions were admittedly years. The High Court, the competent forum jn this regard. It was ^hal Fwest Developmesa Corpn. And dfthers, (2007) 2 SCC 112, it was observed was made in the year 1995 and the writ iled in the year 2005 after a delay of 10 in our opinion, was not justiTfed in y'J '^ Iss^^ ^•iss^" ^wT;^TRnc?ET, t?Til1<l<l<o, RrtK-tyx _-_ w^S.)^^^^lb^- W1c5T ^^TT^ "" ""'^" 3TT^9T tRcl? (^clI^d.E;) W120 3T^5TOTR^ict) ^TT3TT^5Trf)^ich entertaining the writ peti1|ion been filed after a delay should have been dismisfeed laches. Further, in the case of and others,(2007) 9 SCC 278, relating to interference in unexplained delay observed as N^w Delhi MwrifapaS Council v. Pan Singh jtie Supreme Court reiterating the principles cases |where petitioner approaohed the Court with |3etow: 16- There is another sight of. The respondents They dfel not agitate their herein, did ndt claim possible qpportunity. even in the reference Tribunal, It is not their were employed or who been granted the said sce|l ^ity Th^y c4se the writ petitjons could similarly situated. It is trit^ be exercised in favour of| time. Delay and laches a( jyrisdictipn. (See Govt c/\ Jas\fiQnt Singl^ and Thangappan4.) In view of the settled p^ discretion under Article 226 oftl claims, I am not inclined to e( therefore dismissed. However, it| on account of grant of proforms| the post of Sub Engineer, if no( purposes including pensionary cpiqio<n1ri +ii+ioV^rf^^£i^Ri^ci^ ^3rf^T3TT^5T on the ground that the petition has of 10 years and that the writ petitions by the High Court on the ground of aspect of the matter which cannot be lost herein fited a writ petition after 17 years. jrievances for ajong time. They, as noticed with the 17 wbrkmen at the earliest did not implead themselves as parties rjnade by the State before the Industrial 4se that after 1982, those employees who ^ere recruited after the cut-olf date have |le of pay. After such a bng time, therefore, [)t have been entertained even if they are that the discretionary jurisdiction may not those who approach the court after a'long ii|e relevant factors for exerctee of W.B. v. rarun K. Roy^, U.P. Jal Nigam v. y<arnataka Pcwer Corpn. Ltd. v. K. <|)sition of law in the matter of exercise of ie Constitutbn of India with regard to stale ^tertain the petition on merits. Petitton is 1 is made clear that benefits to the petitioner promotbn with effect from 10-02-1987 on granted, shall be extended to him for all b|enefits. __— -—— ——- — Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude