1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2004 Smt. Minaxi D. Naik, aged 53 years, Upper Division Clerk, Office of Chief Electrical Engineer, Electrical Division III, Curti, Ponda-Goa, resident of Post Mardol, Mangueshi Goa- 403 404. ... Petitioner versus 1. Electrical Engineer, Government of Goa, Electricity Department, Vidyut Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Panaji-Goa. 2. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents Shri M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. Vahidulla, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2011. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents presented a copy of the Communication dated 1-2-2011 addressed by the Executive Engineer(Elect.), Division No.III, Ponda to the Deputy Director, Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer, Vidyut Bhavan, Panaji-Goa. It is marked 'X' for identification and is taken on record. Photo copy is served to Shri M. S. Sonak, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have seen the prayers made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. We deem it proper, to reproduce those prayers herein below:- (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the case from the Respondents and upon perusing the same, to quash and set aside the Impugned Memorandum dated 26/6/2003; 3 (B) This Hon'ble Court also be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to implement the order dated 16/1/2003, by which ACP up- gradation has been sanctioned to the Petitioner, upon removal of anomalies that have crept in the matter of pay fixation concerning the Petitioner; (C) This Hon'ble Court also be pleased to issue a further writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to withdraw the order dated 17/9/1991 canceling the TBPS or at any rate, re-fix the Petitioners scale by way of stepping up of pay, or its re-fixation by ignoring the order dated 17/9/1991 along with all consequential benefits arising therefrom; (D) For such other and further reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 4. The petitioner has principally impugned the Communication dated 26-6-2003, Annexure 'X'. In fact, it is not a Communication but a Memorandum dated 31-6-2003. This Memorandum makes a reference to the representation of the petitioner dated 3-2-2003. This representation 4 of the petitioner, has been considered by the respondents and it has been conveyed by the Memorandum No.1-1-89(LDC-TBPS)/CEE/Estt/1692 dated 14-8-1992. 5. In other words, the representation of the petitioner dated 3-2-2003 has been rejected and already communicated to the petitioner on 14-8-1992. The said Memorandum is also on record at page 61. 6. In view of this, the challenge now raised and the prayers sought in prayer clause (A), cannot be favourably considered on account of delay and laches. Petition pertaining to prayer clause (A) stands dismissed. 7. We have considered the prayer made by the petitioner in prayer clause (B). Annexure 'X' is presented today on behalf of the respondents satisfying the grievance of the prayer sought by the petitioner in prayer clause (B). 8. In this view of the matter, now there is no question of adjudication by this Court and grant of prayer clause (B) sought by the 5 petitioner. In substance, the grievance of the petitioner in prayer clause (B) stands satisfied. 9. So far as the other prayers are concerned, and also considered by us, prayer clause (C) referred the Order dated 17-9-1991. On account of delay and laches, it is not possible for us to grant the prayer in favour of the petitioner. This prayer also stands rejected. 10. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition is partly allowed in view of Annexure 'X' satisfying prayer clause (B). Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. S. B. DESHMUKH, J. F. M. REIS, J. RD 6