-"®i.^»:®S*3i 1.^.^ •*e@ ^ff^ ^X)^ 3^/cy' BEFORE THE NASHyA PRXfiESH STA% XE»aiNIS%XTIVE TRIBTOI&L, R|p:Pt?R BENCH AT RAIP^R (H»P<) In tfee matter of O.I^.NO.S Between* M.S.Boricer SOQ of Shri Rapaprasaia Borlcer age<3 alsout 52 years» Asstt.Malaria ©ffloer Kaolcer Tabsil & Blstt.Kaiaker M»P» ^[D (3)- The Sta-fee of Madbya Pra<aesh tN^oagb tbe Ctaief Seeretary Hsaltb & Kaffd.ly welfare, Vallatob Bhawaa BhOpal M.&, ^ 1 ^) ^5) ^)A Mrector e>f Hea3.th Servloes Btopal M.p» J©intE&reGtox Healtb Seryioes (Malaria) Btaopal M.p« Jolot Qlrecter liealth ServJLces (Adiatalstrattoa) Bbepal M«p« QE>mB^.ssi-on@r* EAreetorate, Healtb Serviees Bh&pal M.P» Mstrict Malaria ©ffieer MstrjLct KaBker M,P. Gfetef Medical Qf^ Mstrict KaRlcej; M.P, XPPltIC&TION ^NEER SECTEOK l9 OF ABiaiNIS'mATE^E TSXB (N I^CT 'g) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON»BLESHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (81 No.3036/2005 M.S. Borker Versus State ofM.P. (now C.G.) and others Appearance: Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ar^ind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 19.3.2010) 1. Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Surveillance Inspector on 19.6.1967 and then promoted as Junior Malaria Inspector in the year 1970 and then promoted as Senior Malaria Inspector in the year 1979. According to the petitioner vide order dated 13.8.1987 (Annexure A- 2), he was placed below his junior and one of his junior Mr. H.C. Parasadia was promoted as Malaria Inspector and was shown over and above him in the gradation list dated 13th August, 1987 (Annexure A-2). On representation made, vide Memo dated 28.6.1996 (Annexure A-l) though petitioner's seniority was corrected but he was wrongly shown as member of Schedule Tribe. Case of the petitioner is that though in this correction, his juniors namely Mr. D.S. Narwaria, J.L. Jatav 85 D.P. Kori were kept below, but Mr. Parsadia remained above the petitioner. In the year 1997, petitioner was promoted as Assistant Malaria Inspector, whereas he was entitled to be promoted to the post of District Malaria -2- ^ Officer, had proper seniority been granted to him. He tnade representations on 18.4.1998 (Annexure A-6) 85 11.6.1997 (Annexure A-7) and finally a legal notice though his counsel on 20.3.1999 (Annexure A-8). 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was senior to Mr. H.C. Parsadia, therefore, petitioner ought to be placed above H.C. Parsaddia. It is also argued that petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Malaria Officer since 19.6.1991 and then as District Malaria Officer since 15.4.1997. 3. On the other hand, submission of leaned counsel for the respondents is that petitioner has filed instant petition misleading the Court and suppressing the fact that after promotion in the year 1979, petitioner was always shown as junior to Mr. H.C. Parsadia. In the gradation list published on 6.1.1989 (Annexure R-2), petitioner was shown at Sr. No.322, whereas, Mr. Parsadia was shown at Sr. No.309. According to the petitioner hiniself, in the gradation list published on 13th August, 1987 (Annexure A-2), petitioner was shown at Sr. No.313, whereas, Mr. Parsadia was shown Sr. No.304. As a matter of fact, after promotion in the year 1979, petitioner^had known all along that he has been placed below Mr. Parsadia, but the same was never challenged and this position continued and attained finality. In the year 1991, Mr. Parsadia was promoted as Assistant Malaria Officer vide order dated 19.6.1991 (Annexure R-3), whereas petitioner was promoted vide order dated 11.4.1997 (Annexure R-6). The Gradation List ofAssistant Malaria Officer showing seniority on 1.1.1994 also shows that Mr. Parsadia was promoted vide order dated 19.6.1991. This was also not challenged in time. In the absence of challenge to seniority and promotion to Mr. Parsadia, who has not even been impleaded as respondent in the present case, petitioner is -3- '^^^^ ^ not entitled to claim seniority over and above Mr. Parsadia. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore submits that instant petition has been filed after inordinate delay and laches, therefore liable to be dismissed only on this ground. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 5. What is reflected from. the pleadings and documents on records is that as back as, in the year 1979, Mr. Parsadia was promoted as Malaria/Filaria Inspector (Senior). There is no averment in the petition that petitioner was unaware of promotion of Mr. Parsadia as Malaria Inspector (Senior). In the Gradation List issued as back as on 13th August, 1987 (Annexure A-2), Mr. Parsadia was placed at Sr. No.304, whereas petitioner was placed at Sr. No.313. The order dated 13th August, 1987 shows a Gradation list which reHects that Mr. Parsadia was promoted on 20th July, 1979, whereas petitioner was promoted on 31st July, 1979. There is no averment nor it is a case of the petitioner that this seniority list did not come to his notice or that he had no knowledge of the inter se seniority position. From the return filed by the respondents, it is clear that in subsequent seniority list of Malaria Inspectors (Senior) showing position as on 1.4.1989 (Annexure R-2), Mr. Parsadia was shown at Sr. No.309, whereas petitioner was placed much below at Sr. No.322. Vide order dated 19.6.1991 (Annexure R-3), Mr. Parsadia was promoted as Assistant Malaria Officer. Petitioner did not challenge the said promotion. A gradation list was issued on 28.6.1996 (Annexure A -1) by which the petitioner was shown above Mr. D.S. Narwaria, J.L. Jatav 8& D.P. Kori. There is no material on record to show that petitioner ever challenged seniority of Mr. Parsadida ever since 1979 though various gradations lists were issued from time to ^".^ ^%. -4- time and Parsadia was promoted as Assistant Malaria Officer in 1991. Vide order dated 11.10.1996 (Annexure R-4), Mr. Parsadia was promoted as District Malaria Officer. Petitioner was then promoted as Assistant Malaria Officer vide order dated 11.4.1997 (Annexure R-6). It was only after this that petitioner started making representation claiming that he be placed over and above Mr. Parsadia. There is no material on record to show that petitioner ever challenged his inter se seniority position from 1979 till 1991. Mr. Parsadia enjoyed seniority over and above the petitioner. In 1991, Mr. Parsadia was promoted as Assistant Malaria Officer, this too, was not challenged. In 1996, Mr. Parsadia was promoted as District Malaria Officer. It was only in the year 1997 when the petitioner got promotion as Assistant Malaria Officer, he started claiming the seniority over and above Mr. Parsadia and consequent grant of promotion as Assistant Malaria Officer and then as District Malaria Officer. To say the least, the claim of the petitioner suffers from gross and unexplained delay and laches. 6. In the case of P. S. Sadasivaswamv Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, it has been held as under:- (<2. ......It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and tiy to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, -5- therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal." In the case of Bhoop Sineh Vs. Union of India and others. (1992) 3 SCC 136, it was held as under: "8. There is another aspect of the matter. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is by-itself a ground to refuse relief to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the niind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. Others are then justified in acting on that belief. This is more so in ser^ice matters where vacancies are required ' to be filled promptly. A person cannot be permitted to challenge the termination of his service after a period of twenty-two years, without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay, merely because others similarly dismissed had been reinstated as a result of their earlier petitions being allowed....../' Further, in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Sineh and others,f2007) 9 SCC 278, the Supreme Court reiterating the principles relating to interference in cases where petitioner approached the Court with unexplained delay held as below: "16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case -6- Praveen that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained e.ven if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt ofW.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh and Kamataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan.Y 7. In view of the above legal statutory position, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground ofdelay and laches and is accordingly dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude