IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6057 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 06.08.2009 Raghbir Singh Rathee .... PETITIONER Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner was working as LDC in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board. On 31.12.1989, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. After more than 10 years of his retirement i.e. on 19.5.2000, the petitioner made a representation for promoting him to the post of UDC from the date, Shri Jai Narain, his junior, was promoted. It is stated in the petition that in the year 2000, when the petitioner visited the office of respondent No.4, then he came to know that his junior Shri Jai Narain was promoted as UDC on 6.10.1980. Therefore, he filed the said representation, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-5. CWP No. 6057 of 2006 -2- After filing the representation, the petitioner filed CWP No. 349 of 2002, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to examine the representation filed by the petitioner, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, by passing a speaking order. In pursuance of the said order, the respondents decided the representation vide order dated 4.7.2002 (Annexure P-10), rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It was stated that Shri Jai Narain was promoted as UDC on 6.10.1980, against 25% quota of unqualified UDCs, but the petitioner was not promoted against the said quota, as he could not pass the Departmental Accounts Examination till the abolition of the said quota in the year 1988. After about four years of the passing of the above said order, the petitioner filed the instant petition in the year 2006, for quashing the order dated 4.7.2002. Counsel for the respondents argued that the instant petition filed by the petitioner is highly belated and at this stage, no relief can be granted to him. The so called junior Shri Jai Narain was promoted as UDC on 6.10.1980 in the aforesaid quota on his passing the Departmental Accounts Examination and the petitioner was very much aware of the said fact, but during his service tenure, he did not challenge the same and after 9 years of the said promotion, he retired from service on 31.12.1989. After more than 10 years of his retirement, he made the representation on CWP No. 6057 of 2006 -3- 19.5.2000. After the decision of the said representation on 4.7.2002, the petitioner again remained silent over the matter for 4 years. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner argued that if the petitioner is given promotion with effect from 6.10.1980, the day his junior was promoted, then he will be entitled for more pension, therefore, this writ petition can be entertained even at this stage. After hearing counsel for the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is highly belated, and at this stage, no relief can be granted to him. If his seniority is changed, then it will disturb the seniority of many other officials. The petitioner has also not impleaded Shri Jai Narain. In my opinion, even the order of rejecting the representation of the petitioner in the year 2002 will not revive the stale claim made by the petitioner, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, Industries Est. & Anr., 2009 (1) RSJ 255. In the instant case, the cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 1980, and for the second time, the cause of action arose to him at the time of his retirement i.e. in the year 1989, but the petitioner did not approach the Court, within reasonable time. Thus, at this belated stage, I do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Dismissed. August 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE