1 D. B. SEPCIAL APPEAL (W) NO.218/2007 (SATYA PRAKASH V. THE STATE OF RAJ. & OTHERS) DATE OF ORDER: :::: 26-04-2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. R.S.Saluja, for appellant. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was right in not entertaining the writ petition filed by him on the ground of inordinate delay and latches. The petitioner was given appointment by way of promotion on the post of Stenographer by order dated 6.7.2000 with retrospectives effect from 16.7.1982 and that has been served on him before the disposition of the contempt petition. The contempt petition has been disposed of on 4.12.2000, with the direction that the compliance of the directions of the Court has already been made and nothing survives in it. The order dated 6th July, 2000 was challenged by filing the writ petition No.6271/2003, more than three years after the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has not entertained the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches and has referred to the quantum of delay with reference to the date with effect from which the promotion was made in 2 2000 with retrospective effect. Therefore, it is true the delay was not of 19 years, but the delay was of more than 3 years and ordinarily, the remedy to get the relief by way of civil suit would have been barred by time. Apart from that, no satisfactory explanation has been given for invoking jurisdiction of this Court for challenging the assigned date of promotion with retrospective effect more than three years after the date of impugned order. The only contention raised in this connection before us is that his juniors have been promoted before filing petition. But that was always within the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, that cannot be the explanation. The further contention of the petitioner is that neither emoluments nor selection scale on completion of the period of 9, 18 and 27 years was granted. This is indirectly seeking the same relief, which he cannot get on the ground of latches. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had filed the writ petition in the year, 2003, seeking a remedy, cause of action for which arose in the year, 1972 when his juniors Deena Natha and Mahesh Singh were appointed as Stenograhper Gr. II w.e.f. 13th January, 1972 and 15th January, 1972 respectively. The appointment by way of direct recruitment is an altogether from different stream than the promotion. If they were appointed in the year, 1972 as direct recruits and not by promotion, the 3 petitioner could not make any grievance, seniority is relevant only in the matter of promotion to the said post and not to appointment against vacancies if they were to be filled by direct recruitment. If this appointment was by way of promotion from lower post, then too the inter-seniority position was known to the petitioner when the promotion was made in the year, 1972. At any rate, the date on which he was given promotion w.e.f. 16.7.1982, he had a cause of action whom he knew to be his juniors, but who had been promoted earlier than him. Hence, delay of more than three years in challenging the impugned order assigning his date of promotion remain unexplained. Apart from that, the petitioner made representations in 1987 with regard to the grievance pertaining to the promotion made in years 1975 to 1979 yet he did not take any action after order dated 16.12.2000 was made. Moreover, at belated stage raising of grievance may not only amount to unsettling an otherwise settled position, but may also amount to giving premium to a person who has been himself negligent about persuing his remedy to protect his rights. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (BHANWAROO KHAN), J. (RAJESH BALIA), J. scd.